THE FIVE ANTONIOS OF SHAKESPEARE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Thesis {at f!» Dogma cvf M. A MECHifiAN STATE UNWERSITY Charis: Méchaei Cioffi 1962 LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSTRACT THE FIVE ANTONIOS OF SHAKESPEARE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS by Charles Michael Cioffi Out of Shakespeare's thirty—seven plays which are extant a character named or referred to as Antonio appears in seven of them. Since this reoccurrence of character may have caused some sort of familiar reaction with Eliza— bethan audiences, the writer believes that there is a red thread in the characters, perhaps more than one, and it is the purpose of this study to try to find these similari- ties. The purpose of this study is to discuss and anal- yze the individual characteristics and elements of each Antonio who appears as a dramatic personage, of which there are five. The five plays in which they appear are: Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Merchant of Venice, Much Ado About thhing, Twelfth Night, and The Tempesto By means 3 of source material and contextual studies of the charac- ters, similarities, contrasts, and other possibilities Charles Michael Cioffi are noted and evaluated. Lastly, the five Antonios are analyzed in terms of acting standards for stage portrayal. The study is divided into six chapters. The first chapter is the introduction. Chapter Two is devoted to the source materials related to the plays in general. It shows what appear to be the chief sources of each play. Chapter Three deals with an analysis of each Antonio in context. Chapter Four considers the similarities and dif- ferences of each Antonio in relationship with the other four. Chapter Five reviews the ideas behind Elizabethan acting theories and techniques, using the works of Bertram Joseph and the author's own acting experience as criteria. It also interprets each Antonio in terms of stage portrayal. Chapter Six concludes the study and all previous discussions are commented upon and evaluated so as to arrive at some final conclusions. It was found that all five plays were based upon sources from foreign countries, and were classified as comedies. In regard to character similarities, the Antonios were all found to be: 1. Characters of noble rank and social position. 2. Possessing or suggesting considerable wealth. It first four was the reverse. 1. It Serious, as opposed to comical, Charles Michael Cioffi characters. Noble in bearing and magnificent in countenance. Strong-willed and determined men. Industrious, enterprising, and ambitious. Employed as dramatic devices to give rise to the main action of the play. was also concluded that the Antonios of the plays The first four were much respected; last They They They They They They was further shown that Henry Cundall, were similar and The Tempest Antonio It was found that: the one was not. were were were were were were considerate; he was deceitful. virtuous; he was amoral. proud; he was defiant. earnest; he was sinister. loyal; he was perfidious. he was avaricious. generous; a member of Shakespeare's company, actually played three of the Antonios, but he could have played all five. In discus- sing the Antonios in terms of stage portrayal it was Charles Michael Cioffi concluded that they were all based upon a similar founda— tion; that their minor differences were treated as tex— turing elements adding to the individuality of each Antonio in portrayal. The study concludes with the assertion that Shake- speare, although treating elements of each Antonio individ- ually and in a different perspective, has used the person of Antonio to evince a certain character type. It was further asserted, upon evaluations made throughout the study, that Shakespeare tooled his dramatic elements along preconceived lines until they were transported into the realm of art. THE FIVE ANTONIOS OF SHAKESPEARE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BY Charles Michael Cioffi A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech 1962 TITLE PAGE . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. SOURCE MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two Gentlemen of Verona The Merchant of Venice Much Ado About Nothing Twelfth Night The Tempest III. INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER ANALYSIS . . . . . . Antonio: Two Gentlemen of Verona Antonio: The Merchant of Venice Antonio: Much Ado About Nothin Antonio: Twelfth Night ' Antonio: The Tempest IV. COMPARISONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. THE ANTONIOS ONSTAGE . . . . . . . . Elizabethan Theories of Acting Antonio in Two Gentlemen of Verona Antonio in The Merchant of Venice Antonio in Much Ado About Nothing Antonio in Twelfth Night Antonio in The Tempest VI. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . Page ii 10 15 2O 25 29 35 43 43 47 56 63 71 80, 95 95 110 113 118 121 125 131 138 ii “1A1‘l1. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Shakespeare has been generally regarded as a supreme master of playwrighting. It is the present auth- or's contention that Shakespeare, in order to be a crea— tive artist, was first a master craftsman who tooled his plays along certain preconceived lines or images so as to evoke greater illusions and to communicate better with his audience. Consequently certain similar elements should appear in more than one play. Out of Shakespeare's thirty-seven plays which are extant a character named or referred to as Antonio ap- pears in seven of them. If we were a constant theatre- goer and an admirer of Shakespeare, it seems possible that we would associate one Antonio with another Antonio, since the name occurs in roughly one-fifth of Shake— speare's plays. Certainly this reoccurrence of char- acter should have caused in turn some sort of familiar reaction with Elizabethan theatre audiences. This writer believes that there is a red thread in the char- acters, perhaps more than one, and it is the purpose of this study to try to find these similarities. It is hoped that this investigation will reveal more about Shakespeare as a man of the theatre, and as a playwright, and that in turn it will show how he used his craftsmanship to lead ultimately to artistic perfection. Perhaps, this study will open the way for similar future investigations which can probe deeper into the man and his playwrighting techniques. Therefore, the purpose of this project will be to discuss and analyze the individual characteristics and elements of each of the five Antonios. By means of source material and contextual studies of the characters, simi- larities, contrasts, and other possibilities will be noted and evaluated. Lastly, these characters will be analyzed in terms of acting standards and elements of portrayal during production. The name Antonio appears seven times in the entire Canon, five of which are actual characters while the other two are only references. These latter two are: Antonio, eldest son to the Duke of Florence in All's well That Ends Well (III,V), and Antonio, father to Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew (I,ii). It should be made explicit, here and now, that this thesis is not concerned with Marcus Antonius, Mark Antony, or Antony the servingman in Romeo and Juliet. The investigation will deal only with those characters whose names are Antonio, which are spelled in that precise way, and which are found in Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Merchant of Venice, Much Ado About Nothing, Twelfth Night, and The Tempest. The plays themselves will be approached in the aforementioned order. According to Imetrical tests1 and Variorum editions, these five plays fall into this precise order chronologically. This study and the idea of it emerged from dif- ferent elements: the author's Italian extraction, his experience in acting, ordinary curiosity, numerous class discussions, and those frequent shop talks which last far into the morning. A discussion of the two characters, Stephano and Trinculo, in The Tempest, started this writer glancing through the dramatis personae of every Shakespearean play. The predominance of characters with Italian names and the settings placed in Italian cities were immediately evident, especially in the comedies. 1Henry David Gray, "Chronology of Shakespeare's Plays," Modern LanguagegNotes, XLVI (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1931), pp. 147-150. Apparently, no other foreign country has influenced the writings of Shakespeare as much as Italy. Even the most casual readers of his plays cannot fail to note this fact. Should the reader investigate, he will find that Shakespeare, instead of inventing the stories which have entertained the world for almost four centuries, was indebted not only for names, characters, and scenes, but also for entire plots, to Italian works imported from the major Renaissance Italian cities--Venice, Rome and Florence. Italy was the pacesetter of the Renaissance world in all things, especially in the arts. Like all his Eng— lish contemporaries, Shakespeare was fascinated by Italy. Here he found the best material which was the most attrac— tive to his audiences. However, this indebtedness of his need in no way diminish our good opinion of him. All poets copy; all imitate; all are to some extent plagiar— ists. Their greatness does not rest in creating or in- venting the material, but rather in giving it a highly individual form and meaning. Shakespeare evinces a varied and profound knowl- edge of the country of Italy. His writings seem to display a sympathy for Italy throughout the whole course of her glorious Renaissance career. Grillo states that no poet, with the exception of Dante, has loved Italy more ardently.2 Grillo also writes of passages where Shake- speare speaks of special characteristics of the peninsula, of Italian history, and of her customs. Citations are not given by Grillo, which he says are too numerous, but a gen- eral impression is given that Shakespeare knew a great deal about Italy, and perhaps even traveled there.3 Apart from all the references to Italy in general, which number about 800, and to Rome, which count about 400, Grillo finds that the most important Italian cities are mentioned in the following order of frequency: Venice--52 times, Naples-—34, Milan--25, Florence--23, Padua--22, Verona--20, and others following in lesser numbers. One can easily wonder then, how much would remain if all Italian influence and source materials were elimi- nated from the plays. In that case, Othello and Romeo and 2Ernesto Grillo, Shakespeare and Italy (Glasglow: Robert Maclehose & Co., Ltd., 1949), p. 97. 3Ibid., pp. 95-98. 4 Ibid., p. 98. Juliet would be lost, and likewise, the greater part of The Merchant of Venice, Much Ado About Nothing, Twelfth Night, Measure for Measure, and Cymbeline. All life and interest would vanish from The Tempest, Taminggof the Shrew, The Merry Wiyes of Windsor, Two Gentlemen of Verona, All;§ well That Ends Well, and The Comedy of Errors.5 Finding all these dramas either wholly or partly derived from Italian works,aireader:may wonder what Shakespeare would have produced had these sources not existed. Nevertheless, we know that they did exist, and he was influenced by them and used them. After reconciling himself to the above fact, this author was confronted by several questions. Why is Antonio used more than any other name? Why so often? And why Antonio in particular? This writer's basic back- ground through previous study warranted a more detailed examination and fostered enough curiosity to undertake this study. Ibid., p. 96. "fl The amount of work already done on Shakespeare is obvious to anyone who has ever walked along library shelves containing these works. The New York Public Library has thirteen drawers of catalogued file cards on the man, and the Library of Congress lists him as third of all men about whom the most books have been written, the first two being Jesus Christ and Abraham Lincoln and in that order. Even in America, Shakespeare is more popular than George Washington. Upon closer scrutiny this author found that the majority of these works were concerned with extraneous and often hair—splitting absurdities, such as showing Shake- speare was a part-thmehorticulturist, theologian, ap- prentice armorer, and seller of religious articles. His plays were dissected as were his characters, but of- ten in a way which perhaps benefited no one except the author's desire to see his ideas in print. Many of these did not allow for dramatic license and too many disregarded Shakespeare's responsibilities as an actor, This can also be verified by perusing the library shelves where Shakespeare's works are contained. The titles given are quite alarming. business manager and stockholder in a company which was out to please its audience and make some money. It has only been within the past two or three decades that anything has been done with regard to Shakespeare's craftsmanship as a playwright and a practical man of the theatre. This may be in part the result of the blossoming of Shakespearean festivals and playhouses throughout the Western world. However, it is in this light that this author has examined these five Antonios, individually and collectively. The study is structured so as to present each factor in as complete a context as possible. The first chapter is the introduction. Here is presented the auth- or's impressions and ideas concerning the project's aim and purpose, and how the elements for consideration will be approached. Chapter Two is devoted to the source materials related to the plays in general. It shows what is believed by this author to be the chief narrative and/ or dramatic sources and analogues of the plays concerned. Chapter Three deals with an analysis of each character in context. Each Antonio is analyzed in terms of char— acteristics, background, relationships and elements of like importance so as to delineate him in the best possible light. Chapter Four considers the similarities and differences of each character in relationship with the other four. Chapter Five will review the ideas behind Elizabethan theories and techniques of Acting, as indi— cated in the works of Bertram Joseph. Certain similari- ties between Elizabethan and modern conventions will be noted so as to equate the two styles. The author's own experience as an actor will be used to present the char— acters of the five Antonios for stage portrayal. Chapter Six, the last, concludes the study. All previous dis- cussions will be commented upon and evaluated so as to arrive at some final conclusions. 10 CHAPTER II SOURCE MATERIALS There have been four major works which extensively discuss a large body of parallels found in Shakespeare's work. In 1753-4 Mrs. Charlotte Lennox published Shake- speare Illustrated in three volumes with critical remarks. In this study she unwisely tried to show that Shakespeare spoiled many of his stories by complicating the intrigue and introducing absurdities. In Germany, K. Simroch pro— duced a collection of narrative (non-dramatic) sources in 1831. Then came J. P. Collier's Shakespeare Library (1843) with illustrations for fifteen plays. This work was expanded into six volumes encompassing the entire canon by W. C. Hazlitt in 1875. Since that time there has been no compendium of equal scope until Geoffrey Bullough published his Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare in 1958. This has now grown to three volumes. This lack is perhaps not surprising, for though research has since brought to light comparatively few new parallels, it has become increasingly apparent how much more often one can say, "This seems like Shakespeare's 11 source," rather than "This is definitely Shakespeare's source." Any attempt to bring together all known parallels must fail by reason of the space required, since some of the stories (e.g. the Bond—theme of The Merchant of Venice) are found all over the world. On the other hand, some probable sources have disappeared. Furthermore, there must often remain doubt as to which of several available sources the dramatist used. In discussing parallels, it is always well to bear in mind Dr. Johnson's warning against seeking an external origin for every phrase, however brilliant or commonplace, in a great author.7 Therefore, to alleviate the matter considerably, this study will present only the source materials which are believed to have been most influential upon these five plays of Shakespeare's. Whenever possible the mate— rial will be included to give evidence as to its impor- tance. Since all of the five characters are to be found in comedies, this narrows the study and in turn 7Beverley Warner (ed.), Famous Introductions to Shakespeare's Plays (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1906), p. 139. 12 concerns us with comical sources of Medieval and Eliza- bethan English life, contemporary western Europe, and those of the Commedia dell'Arte and Commedia Erudita, the main proponents of Italian comedy. First, it is important to consider the prevailing problems of putting a production on during Elizabeth's and James' time. It will help explain the acceptance of certain sources and the rejection of others. Because of demands placed upon dramatists by the Revels Office, by the playwright's own company or the one for which he was writing, by publishers, and by the need for income, time was always at a premium. From the records which have come down to us it is to be inferred that the audiences of Tudor London constantly demanded novelty in stage attractions, too. Therefore, play- wrights were kept busy, and must have worked at a great rate of speed. Sometimes authors' plots (detailed scenario breakdowns of the play placed backstage for the actor's perusual and consultation) were often the only things that made a play sustain itself through the initial performance. The actors were not doing "runs" as we 13 know them today, but were performing in a manner similar to present day repertory companies. Therefore, a particular play, if it was a smash hit, might be repeated once a week. If it was a lesser success, it was given perhaps once a month, along with dozens of other plays. This could be extremely confusing, especially in introducing a new play which had not been given enough or any rehearsal time. An actor was quite taxed in such a case. Nevertheless, these actors, most of whom were masters of improvisation in the style of the Commedia dell'Arte, could extemporize and af— fect something with only the bare plot-line to go on. Surely, an actor who performed every day speaking in verse, could extemporize in it as well, much the same as modern actors can ad lib in prose dialogue. Actors perhaps transposed whole speeches from another play to the one at hand, because they knew of a nice lyrical passage from a play by Marlowe which could be substituted for the one they just muffed or forgot. They would use it since something was needed, fitting or not, to keep the show going or until someone set things aright. Since professional scribes were employed to write out the plays, the prompter was usually called upon to l4 bear witness and verify its transcription. If a prompter knew that what was written and forgotten was not as good as what was ad-libbed, might he not approve of the recording of the latter? This is conjecture, of course, but some- thing worth bearing in mind in terms of what we have as opposed to what was really written. How much of the scripts which are extant is authentic and how much is fab— riciation of some kind? How many bad quartos are being considered authentic? This is not to be answered here. Is it not possible that some scattered lines in Shake- speare which are similar to those of another playwright are a result of either coincidence or a prompter's error, rather than an indication of strong influence? However, source materials have influenced many a writer's hand, but on a larger scale than stated above. In dealing with works by foreign authors, it is not impos- sible that Shakespeare may have asked his actors and friends if they knew of any good stories written abroad or, better yet, if they could read, write or speak a foreign language so as to help him in searching for new or unfamiliar stories and themes. This is in relation to sources which may not have been translated as yet during Shakespeare's lifetime. 15 Therefore, let us turn to each of the five plays in chronological order, and see what seems to be their most influential, source material. The Two Gentlemen of Verona This play is usually regarded as the earliest sur- viving romantic comedy of England and almost of Europe. The first appearance of The Two Gentlemen of Verona in print, so far as we know, was in the First Folio, where it followed The Tempest as the second comedy in the volume. In connection with the printing of the First Folio it was listed in the Stationers' Register in Nevember, 1623, among the plays " not formerly entred to other men.”8 It occupied the same position in the second, third and fourth folios. It was divided into acts and scenes, and had the names of the characters appended. There is no evidence which enables us to date The Two Gentlemen of Verona exactly. The play was men- tioned for the first time by Francis Meres in his 8"Two Gentlemen of Verona," The Arden Shake— speare, ed. Charles Nichols (New YOrk: D. C. Heath & Co., 1931), p. v. 16 Palladis Tamia (1598). The internal evidence of style and versification points to a much earlier date. The amount of poor and strained punning, the presence of doggerel couplets, and the stiffness of the blank verse show early workmanship, but the metrical evidence is conflicting, since the rhymed pentameter lines are only one in seven- teen, a smaller number than in any of the plays earlier than The Merchant of Venice. However, by a process of comparing the evidence offered by various scholars for other early plays we may arrive at a fairly exact estimate for the date of The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Professor Baldwin, in his edition of The Comedy of Errors in the Arden series, has given evidence to prove that The Comedyyof Errors must have been put into shape about the Christmas of 1589, and The_ Two Gentlemen of Verona followed it. Baldwin also points out that the play we are considering is earlier than Romeo and Juliet, thus not later than 1590—91. However, scholars believe that evidence for a Romeo and Juliet as early as 1591 is inconclusive,agreeing too that parts of it were written 9Ibid., p. vi. Reference is also made to different sdholars and the conflict of their theories on metrical evidence. 17 as early as 1593-94. Moreover, no one believes that Ihg Two Gentlemen of Verona was written before Love's Labour's ngt, and the evidence given by H. B. Charlton on page 266 in the Modern Language Review of July-October, 1918, shows that 1592 is the earliest date than can be assigned to the latter play. we are, on the whole, safe in assuming that The Two Gentlemen of Verona was written about 1592-93.10 The source of the Proteus-Julia story is a romance about a shepherdess,Fe1ismena, from a collection of Span- ish prose romances Diana by the Portuguese novelist and poet Georg Montemayor. Julia corresponds to Montemayor's heroine Felismena and Proteus to Montemayor's hero Don Felix. The chief points of resemblance include the scene where Julia's waiting-woman gives her Proteus' letter, the dispatch of Proteus to Court, the pursuit of him by Julia disguised as a young man, her lodging at an inn and hearing the serenade to her rival (who is called Celia in the romance), Julia's taking service with Proteus as a page and being sent to Silvia (Celia) as a messenger from Proteus, the conversation between Julia 10Ibid., p. vii. 18 and Silvia, and Silvia's attitude toward the supposedly absent Julia and toward Proteus' suit. There are numerous points of difference, including Shakespeare's compression of the tale, and Celia's passion for the supposed page, an incident which Shakespeare used later in Twelfth Night, though he is there following Riche's account of a similar passion in the tale of Apollonius and Silla. Celia, in Montemayor's story, ends her own life when Felismena turns out to be a woman. How Shakespeare learned of this story is entirely a matter of conjecture. The earliest complete version in English is the translation by Bartholomew Yonge in 1598. In his preface, however, he states that his manuscript had been in existence for nearly sixteen years. Obvious- ly Shakespeare may have become acquainted with the story in this way. There was also a French translation pub- lished in 1578. There is, further, a supposition that a play entered in the records of the Office of the Revels, 1584-1585, called Felix and Philiomena may have been a 11Ibid., p. viii. l9 dramatic version of the Felix and Felismena story.12 We shall never know whether it gave Shakespeare part of his plot for the play is not extant. Knowing, as we do, that his method of work included the revamping of older plays, we may keep the notion in our minds as a possibility. It is idle to speculate concerning the source of the Valentine-Proteus friendship plot. Such specula- tions are based upon too slender evidence, but the con— flict of love and friendship, together with the contracts of a loyal and faithless friend, is common in Renaissance literature, notably in the story of Titus and Gisippus, which was translated from Boccaccio's Decameron by Sir Thomas Elyot in The Gouvernour (1531).l3 Lyly's Euphues has in it an incident concerning a false friend not un- suggestive in this connection. However, the idea of friendship, with its implications of faithfulness (the trust between Proteus and Valentine) and of treachery 2 . 1 Peter Cunningham, (ed.), Extracts from the Ac- countg of the Revels at Court in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James I (London: The Shakespeare Soc- iety, 1842), p. 189. 3 Geoffrey Bullough, Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare, I (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958). P. 203. 2O (Proteus' love intrigue against Valentine for Silvia's hand), is a sufficiently Shakespearean idea, as the son— nets and other plays show. Concerning other possible borrowings, it is suf- ficient to note that the outlaws may come from the Robin Heed ballads, and that the use of Verona, of Mantua as a place of exile, the rope ladder, and the rendezvous at the friar's cell could all come from Shakespeare's familiarity with Brooke's poem Romeus and Juliet—- a familiarity soon to be put to use in his own Romeo and Juliet. The Merchant of Venice The Merchant of Venice was first printed in 1600, when it appeared by itself in two quarto editions: one, called the First Quarto, published by James Roberts; the other, the Second Quarto, by Thomas Heyes. It had been in existence at least two years before, for on July 22, 1598, it was entered in the Stationers' Register by James Roberts under the name of ”a booke of the Mar— chaunt of Venyce or otherwise called the Jewe of Venice." And in the same year 1598 appeared the Palladis Tamia or 21 Wit's Treasury by Meres who names the following comedies of Shakespeare: “his Gentlemen of Verona, his Errors, his love labors lost, his Love labours wonne, his Midsummers night dreame, and his Merchant of Venice. So far as external evidence goes, therefore, we can be certain that the play was written not later than the end of 1597. All attempts to fix the date more pre— cisely than this rest upon unsatisfactory evidence. The outline of the plot is believed to be one of a collection of stories in an Italian book called I1 Pecorone, written by a certain Ser Giovanni Fiorentino, and printed in 1578.15 Since no evidence can be found of a translation of it during Shakespeare's time, it is assumed that either such a story once existed and has since perished, or else Shakespeare read or was read the story in the original Italian. In the story as told in Il Pecorone, we find, as in Shakespeare's play, a Venetian merchant fondly devoted l4 H~ H- Furness (ed.), “The Merchant of Venice,” The New Vagiorum Shakespeare, VII (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1888). PP. 271—8. 15Bullough, loc. cit., p. 445. 22 to a young kinsman, and this kinsman in love with a fair and wise lady of Belmont, who is only to be won by the suitor who shall undergo successfully an extraordinary test. we have the same pledge with a Jew, made for the same purpose, followed by the lover's success and the merchant's bankruptcy, and later on by a trial in which the merchant's rescue is achieved, through just the same interpretation of the law, by the lady in the same dis— guise. Finally, on their return to Belmont it is by means of a ring, begged from her husband when in Venice, that she is able, after due banter and mystification, to prove her identity with the unknown lawyer. There are minor differences. For instance, in the Italian story none of the names of persons are the same as Shakespeare's,the lover makes th£g§_voyages to Belmont, and the sum borrowed is t§§_thousand ducats. When the marriage takes place the young kinsman forgets the merchant, and is only accidentally reminded of him just as the time allowed by the bond is on the point of expiring. These are slight variations. However, two important differences in incident are made by Shake- speare. First, he changes the method by which the Lady 23 of Belmont is to be won, from its unsuitable form in Il_ Pecorone to that of the choice among three caskets; and second, he gives the Jew a daughter, whose elopement with a Christian forms an important part of the play.16 The sources of these variations must be looked for elsewhere. The story of a choice among three vessels of gold, silver, and lead, with inscriptions somewhat similar to those in the play, and with a marriage depending on the right choice, occurs in the Gesta Romanorum, a Latin col- lection of medieval tales, made in England probably about the thirteenth century. This collection was translated in- to English, became extremely popular, and was frequently printed in Shakespeare's time. Also, a story faintly sim- ilar in some points to that of Jessica has been found in the Tales of Massuccio diSalerno, who flourished about 1470.17 16"The Merchant of Venice," The Arden Shakespeare, ed..H. L. Withers, rev. Morris Croll (New York: D. C. Heath & Co., 1916), p. vii. 17Karl J. Holzknecht, The Background of Shake- speare's Plays (New York: American Book Co., 1950), p. 239. 24 The stories on the bond theme and the caskets were widely popular and occurred in slightly different forms constantly in European and in Oriental literature. But it is certain, from accumulation of coincidences, that it was mainly from I1 Pecorone and the Gesta Romanorum that Shakespeare drew the plot of The Merchant of Venice. One other possible source must be mentioned. Although Jews had long since been banished from England, there is note of one who was a prominent figure in London and at court during Elizabeth's reign. His name was Lopez, and he was one of the first physicians of his day, having the Earl of Leicester and the Queen among his patients. In 1594 he was hanged at Tyburn on the charge of conspiring with the King of Spain to poison, first, a Portuguese pretender named Antonio, and second--as was alleged--Queen Elizabeth herself. The history of Dr. Lopez must have been well known to Shakespeare, and very probably suggested some points to Shakespeare as well as the name of the enemy Antonio. 25 Much Ado About Nothing Much Ado About Nothing is first mentioned in the Stationer's Register under date August 4th, 1600, when it is noted along with As You Like It, Henry V, and Eyggy Man In His Humour as a book to be stayed, i.e., not printed without further authority. The next appearance of the play in print is the First Folio. The Folio text of Much Ado is a revision of the Quarto. The title page of the Quarto reads that the play had already "been sun— dry times publicy acted" by the Lord Chamberlain's Men. The carelessness of printers has preserved the names of two of the original cast, Will Kemp and Richard Cowley.18 As the play is not mentioned by Meres in his list of 1598, one can presume that it was written in between the two dates. In August 1600 As You Like It was apparently a new play due to its entry in the Regis— ter, and the mention that Much Ado was already performed leaves the summer and autumn of 1599 as the possible time of composition. 18"Much Ado About Nothing," The Arden Shake- speare, ed. J. C. Smith (New York: D. C. Heath & Co., 1916). P. vii. 26 "A lover deceived into thinking his betrothed un- faithful, By seeing a man at her chamber-window, such is the kernel of the story. Shakespeare was familiar with two versions of this story. The first is the romance of Ariodante and Genevra which appeared in Ariosto's Orlando Furioso (1516); and the other, the story of Phaon and Claribel in Spenser's Faerie Queene (1590). The Orlando Furioso had been translated by Peter Beverley in 1565, and also by Tubervil, and had formed the sub- ject of a lost play acted in 1583.19 But in the main, Shakespeare followed the version of the Italian novelist Bandello. This is the story of Timbreo di Cardona as told by Bandello in 1554: In the year 1283, after the massacre of the Sicilian Vespero, King Piero of Arragon seized the throne of Sicily, and having defeated and captured Charles of Anjou, establised his court at Messina. Here his favourite Timbreo di Car- dona saw and loved Fenicia, the daughter of a decayed gentleman of the town, Lionata de'Lion- ati. At first he tried to get her for his mis- tress, but failing in this he approached her father by proxy and sought her hand in honourable 19Charles T. Prouty, The Sources of "Much Ado About Nothing" (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), p. 13. 27 marriage. They were betrothed. But Timbreo's brother-in-arms, Girondo, had also seen and loved Fenicia. To prevent the marriage he suborned a foolish youth, who told Timbreo that Fenicia was in the habit of receiving a friend of his three nights a week. For proof of this Timbreo, con— cealed in the garden, saw the aforesaid youth, with a servant of Girondo's disguised as a gentle— man, and a third man carrying a ladder, approach Lionato's house at night. The supposed lover entered by a window in a deserted part of the house at which Fenicia used sometimes to sit by day. This was enough for Timbreo. The friend who had nego- tiated the engagement was sent to break off the match. Lionato thought that Timbreo had repented of marrying into so poor a family and had coined the story as a pretext. On hearing it Fenicia fell from swoon into swoon, reviving only when all thought her dead, and preparations had been made for her burial. It was resolved to send her away to an uncle's house in the country, and to pro- ceed with the funeral as if she were dead indeed. Remorse now entered into Girondo. In the church, before Fenicia's tomb, he confessed his crime to Timbreo, proffered his poniard, and bade him take vengeance. But Timbreo forgave him, and together they went to Lionato, offering to undergo any penance he might impose. Lionato asked merely that Timbreo should come to him if ever again he thought of marriage. This, after a year of mourning, Timbreo did, and was betrothed anew to Fenicia, who was now seventeen and had grown so much taller and more beautiful that Timbreo did not recognize her. The wedding took place at the uncle's house in the country, the bride's identity was disclosed, Girondo was made happy with the hand of her younger sister Belfiore, and the whole party returned in joy to Messina.2O 20This is, in essence, the story by Bandello. Furness gives the full translation of it in the volume de- voted to the play in The New Variorum Shakespeare, pp. 311- 326. 28 This is plainly, in outline, the story of Hero and Claudio. For Ariosto and Spenser it will suffice to note the points at which Shakespeare seems to have preferred their version to Bandello's. In Ariosto, the villain bribes Genevra's maid (who is his mistress) to dress in Genevra's chamber. This suggested the part played by Margaret. Spenser makes the lady's supposed paramour "a groom of base degree,‘ and the villain's motive becomes envy or native malice-— He, either envying me toward good, Or of himself to treason ill disposed . . _21 hints developed in the characters of Borachio and Don John. This is all the recognizable material. Shakespeare has economized time, place, incident, and character. He has confined the action to Messina, and to a few specific places there. He has compressed it into nine days, of which four are blank. Five separate scenes and five days suffice. He had to make it strik- ing and probable, and yet had to avoid a tragic solution. He has brought the preliminary action and the preliminary 21"Much Ado About Nething," The Arden Shake- speare, p. xiii. 29 characters directly into the service of his plot. He does all without sacrificing breadth and perspective. The hero and heroine of the second plot, Benedick and Beatrice, may have been suggested by the Girondo and Belfiore of the novel. But its central idea of two peo- ple sworn foes to love, who end up lovers, had already been dealt with by Shakespeare, though more abstractly, in Love's Labour's Lost. By their rival eminence in wit, as well as by their common contempt for a passion which they have never felt, they are obviously meant for each other, if they could be brought to see it. But the speck of vanity in each blinds them. Twelfth Night The earliest known edition of Twelfth Night is that of the First Folio. The means of settling the date at which the play was written are the references to it by contemporary writers, the topical phrases in the play, and the characteristics of construction, versification, or thought that mark a particular state in the author's development. 3O Twelfth Night is not included in Meres' list, and we may, therefore, be reasonably sure that it had not been acted before the close of 1601. At that time January, February, and March were reckoned as the last three months of the year, so that what may be called January 1602, now, was then called January of 1601. Occasional references in diaries, chronicles, and letters have mentioned the per- formance of the play in January of 1601. This is the log— ic behind the use of the first date. There is mention of the map referred to in the play to be a copy of the first edition of Hakluyt'g Voyages which records discoveries up to the year 1596. The technical characteristics of the early plays are wanting. Scholars attest that the verse structure and use of prose belong to Shakespeare's middle period, and that his maturity as a writer is very evident. Therefore, the final conclusion is that Twelfth Night was certainly written not later than the end of 1601, and probably not earlier than 1597.22 22"Twelfth Night," The Arden Shakespeare. ed. Arthur Innes, rev. Frederick Pierce (New York: D. C. Heath & Co., 1916), p. vii. 31 The central ideas of Twelfth Night were by no means new. The girl masquerading as a man was a common device. Shakespeare himself had already used it three times, in Two Gentlemen of Verona, in The Merchant of Venice, and in AggYou Like It. The confusion arising from personal like— nesses he had borrowed before in The Comedy of Errors. The leading features of his main plot had already been presented in Italian in the Novelle of Bandello and the play G1KIngannati, in England in Barnabe Riche's story of Apolonius and Silla. Whether Shakespeare had actually read or seen on the stage a story or play that embodied the main features of the leading plot of Twelfth Night, we cannot say with absolute certainty. That he knew the plot had been used before for stories or plays is beyond a doubt. There is, at least, a very strong presumption that he deliberately adapted for his own purposes one or more of the pieces mentioned above. The likeness of Gl'Ingannati to Twelfth Night is quite marked. In both plays the heroine disguises her- self as a boy, takes service with a man with whom she is in love, woos on his behalf the woman with whom he is in 32 love, and wins the lady's love for herself. Other parallels are: the appearance on the scene by the brother, confusion between brother and sister, marriage of the lady to the brother, subsequent discovery of the whole blunder, and a general joyful marrying off of everybody. This Italian play was almost certainly based on Bandello's story re— ferred to above. It is by no means certain that Shakespeare knew Gl'Ingannati; probably he did. The literary culture of the day was drawn from Italy; Italian words are rather abundant in this play; and Shakespeare was certainly well acquainted with a good deal of Italian literature, though his knowledge of it may have been derived almost entirely from translators or translations. Still, the story of Apolonius and Silla is quite near enough to that of Twelfth Night to have served as the dramatist's model without his going farther afield. On the other hand, Barnabe Riche may very possibly have based his story on Bandello's. It is important to notice that the likeness between Twelfth Night and Gl'Ingannati does not prove that Shakespeare was actually acquainted with the 33 Italian play; although the occurrence of the name Malevalti in Gl'Ingannati looks as if it were the original of Shake- . 23 speare's Malvolio. The story of Apolonius and Silla presents the same leading features, though some of the details vary. Apolonius is the Duke of Constantinople; Silla follows him for love, and enters his service as a page. The love- making at cross purposes goes on in the same way: Silla's brother Silvio appears and, except for a certain grossness of incident which Shakespeare avoids, the story works out . , . . 24 just as do G1 Ingannati and Twelfth Night. Thus we find that Shakespeare's main plot is a story the principal features of which were common property. Two extant versions, one in English, and one in Italian, bear a close resemblance to Twelfth Night; for example, the heroine adopts the name of Cesare, as Viola adopts 23This is only a speculation. Furness says that Shakespeare, even if he had read the Italian play, would not have had any cause to make the names similar since the characters are not. 24Mary Augusta Scott. Elizabethan Translations from the Italian (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1916), p. 218. I\ v . . . Auk a}. ._ .. .1 a.» an an R» a: .1. 2» ~u. :. at u- 6- :n .6 'I 34 that of Cesario. we may fairly conclude, though not with absolute certainty, that Shakespeare had read one or per- haps all of them. At any rate he did not construct the main incidents out of his inner consciousness; and if he actually did come across one of those versions, we may be quite certain that he would have had no scruple whatever about making precisely as much use of it as suited his convenience. There is no evidence that the underplot, in which Malvolio is the central figure, has been borrowed; the interweaving of the main plot and underplot we can assume to be original, and every one of the characters is of Shakespeare's own creation. However, in reference to Antonio, there is some possibility that his name may have been taken from Eden's figstgry of Tgavaylgj 1557. The Knight of Rhodes, Antonio Pigofetta Vincentine, who accompanied Magellan on his great voyage and who later wrote about it, could possi- bly be the source forAntonio's name.25 Here, too, Shake- speare may have borrowed the name of Sebastian. The 25Ibid. 35 former's stature as a seafaring man could also have been an inspiration to Shakespeare and his character drawing. The Tempest The date of The Tempest is one of the most vexing problems of Shakespearean criticism, and cannot be fixed with complete certainty. The play was first printed in the First Folio. The safest way to ascertain the approxi— mate date of the play, aside from far-reaching conjec- tures, is to favor the indisputable evidence afforded by the metre, style, and spirit of the play. Shakespeare's metrical practice underwent great changes during his career as a playwright. Rhyme diminished from Love's Labggr's Lost, where it marks 62 verses in every 100, to The Winter's Tale, where it is entirely absent. In Th; Tempest there is one rhyming couplet. Double endings tend to increase, though not uniformly. They are fewest in Henry IVL Pt. 1, 8 percent, and most numerous in Thg Tempgst, 35 percent. Run-on lines increase from 8 per- cent in The Taming of the Shrew to 46 percent in gym;. beline. In The Tempest there are 41 percent. Speech endings not coincident with verse endings increases from 36 Hengy IV, Pt. 1, 1/2 percent, to The Winter's Tale, 87 per- cent. In The Tempest there are 84 percent. By the first test The Tempest stands last but one among the plays; by the second it stands last; by the third it is last but three; by the fourth, last but two. The combined evidence of these tests assigns the play, beyond doubt, to Shake— speare's final period, approximately between 1608 and 1614.26 The evidence of style supports this conclusion. In his last period, his wealth of ideas tends to outgrow the capacity of his ability to balance thought and expres- sion, and the result is a style elliptical to a fault, overriding the use of syntax observed in earlier plays. Throughout, The Tempest is an example of this style in its fullest development. The spirit of the play and its nature also as- sign it to Shakespeare's last years. After the period of the great tragedies, 1600 to 1608, his mood changed as did his materials. Romantic themes, tales of kin— dred parted by wrongdoing or misadventure, and reunited 26"The Tempest," The Arden Shakespeare. ed. Frederick Boas, rev. Katharine Lee Bates (New York: D. c. Heath & Co., 1916). p. vii. 37 after many years, engaged his pen. Reconciliation and repentance are the keynotes of this closing group, and in The Tempest they are struck in the clearest tones. Thus these converging lines of internal evidence forbid us to place the play earlier than 1608. The metri- cal evidence favors a date for The Tempest near the date of The Winter's Tale, which was seen at the Globe Theatre on May 15, 1611. The two plays seem to have been written almost at the same time, and the internal tests show that The Tempest was in part inspired by Silvester Jourdan's narrative of the wreck off the Bermudas of The Sea- Venture, the flagship of a fleet of nine vessels bound for Jamestown. The wreck took place in July, 1609, and during the latter part of that year much anxiety was felt for the fate of the crew, as is proved by the issue of a pamphlet by the Council of Virginia to allay appre- hension. After the safe return of the shipwrecked com- lpany to England, Jourdan, who was one of their number, ‘published his account dated October 13, 1610. The Inany points between his tract and The Tempest are sim- ilar, suggesting the end of 1610 or the beginning of w- 38 1611 as the date of the play. This we may sum up as the narrowest area of time in which the play was written.27 It is the first play in the First Folio and, with the exception of The Comedy of Errors,is the shortest Shakespearean play, containing but 2064 lines. This brevity leads us to believe that it was originally com- posed for some Court entertainment. The source of The Tempest, like the date, cannot be definitely ascertained. References have been made to certain geographical locations and sailing manuals which tend to confuse only the issue further. In 1561, Thomas' fiietorye of Italve tells of names and incidents which also occur in The Tempest. In Thomas' work, Prospero Adorno was established as the Duke of Milan's lieutenant in Genoa, 1477. But he continued scarcely a year when he was threatened by some enemy faction in Milan to be ousted. The people were roused in his behalf and made him governor of the commonwealth. The jealousy of a rival family in Genoa soon caused the exile of the Adorni brothers from the city. The commoners rose again, remembering how well they had fared under the Duke of .Milan and made Antonio Adorno the governor. 27Ibid., p. ix. ‘. . “.311 9:15.. 39 In The Tempest Caliban says of Prospero: . . . his art is of such power, It would control my dam's god, Setebos . (I,ii,372-3) Later on, in Act V, we find the name Setebos mentioned again. It was Richard Farmer, who first suggested that Shakespeare had got this name from The Histony of Travayle in the west and East Indies, 1577, by Richard Eden, the pioneer of British Oceanic Literature and forerunner of the more famous chronicler and geographer Richard Hakluyt. It is merely a new edition of Eden's Decades of Newe worlde or west India, 1555, which gave the first impres- sion of the maritimeeanterprises to the English public. This compilation has been re-edited by Edward Arber in The First Three English books on America, 1885.28 In a passage from Arber we see the telling of a story about giants or monsters confronted by Magellan on his circumnavigation. Magellan called them the Patagoni. 28H. R. D. Anders, Shakespeare's Books (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1904), p. 223. _.‘__ i 4O Malone, in his Variorum edition suggests these giants as the remote ancestors of Caliban and that Shake- speare took the names of Alonso, Ferdinand, Sebastian, Gonzalo, Antonio, and Francisco from Eden. Arber's passages are taken from a chapter en- titled: A briefe Declaration of the Vyage or Navigation made aboute the Worlde. Gathered out of a large Booke wrytten hereof py Master Antonio Pygafetta Vincentine. Since it was a popular book, owing to its impact upon Eng- lish overseas expansion, Shakespeare's knowledge of the story of the first circumnavigation of the globe is almost positive. These possibilities may have supplied Shake- speare with some kind of framework for his plot, but they do not account for the central incidents of the story. However, a Nfirnberg notary, Jacob Ayre, died in 1605, and in 1618 a folio edition of his dramas was published with the title, Opus Theatricum. One of the pieces in this volume, Die Schéne Sidea (The Fair Sidea) bears some remarkable resemblance to Ine Tempest. The story tells of a Duke Ludolff of Lith- ‘uania and his daughter Sidea. Ludolff is dethroned 291bid., p. 225. w 41 and expelled from his kingdom with Sidea by Prince Leude- gast of Wiltau. He takes refuge in a wood, and by his magic arts and the aid of a devil Runcifal gets into his possession Leudegast's son Engelbrecht who has lost his ”a way while hunting. Engelbrecht and his squire try to draw their swords to defend themselves, but find that their weapons are charmed from moving. Engelbrecht is F"‘ then taken prisoner, and set to bear logs for Sidea, who N" at first treats him as harshly as does her father. But his noble birth and beauty win her heart, and they flee together. After sundry adventures, in which for a time they are separated, they reach Leudegast's court. The piece ends with their marriage and the reconciliation of the two princes. Intermingled with this main plot are episodes of low comedy which have no relation to the humourous scenes in The Tempest, and throughout the Ger— man and the English plays the names of persons and lo— calities are different. But this does not affect the striking parallelism between the central situations in the two dramas. In both there is a deposed ruler, ex— pelled with his daughter as sole companion, and prac- ticing in banishment the arts of magic; in both he gets 42 into his power his enemy's son, whose sword he has enchanted and whom he condemns to the task of log—bearing; in both the heroine and the captive fall in love, and the story closes with their marriage and the reconciliation of their parents. .-1 F There can be no reasonable doubt either that Shakespeare t and Ayrer borrowed from a common source, or that the Eng— I lishman had a version of the Nfirnberg play before him. The latter is far from unlikely, for we know that English act- ors were in Nurnberg in 1604 and 1606 and that in June, 1613, the Elector of Brandenburg's servants and the English comedians acted several comedies and tragedies, including a "Sedea," which can scarcely have been any other than Ayrer's play.30 When English companies were so frequently visit- ing Nfirnberg, what is more likely than that they should bring home versions of some of Ayrer's favorite pieces, and that one should fall into Shakespeare's hands? 30 Kathleen Marguerite Lea, Italian Popular Comedy, I (Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1934), pp. 43 CHAPTER III INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER ANALYSIS Let us now turn to the characters, individually, as presented in the plays. The Great Books of the Western World edition of the plays is used as a basis for all grammatical and textual references. Ira \v n .1 Antonio: Two Gentlemen of Verona Antonio, in this play, is the least significant of the five characters under study. He appears in only one scene (I,iii) and his position as a character in the play is as father to Proteus, one of the two gentlemen. From what is contained in this scene, certain charac- teristics can be determined. Most of what we can gather about Antonio's char— acter is present in his lines. From Antonio's entrance with his servant Panthino we immediately become con- scious of the mutual respect between the two men. In the short discourse between them we see Antonio the much respected man and master: 31"Shakespeare I & II,“ Great Books of the Western Wbrld, Vols. 26 & 27 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc.), 1952. A/_ 44 I like thy counsel well; well hast thou advised: And that thou mayest perceive how well I like it The execution of it shall make known. (I,iii,34—6) Here he both seeks and respects the opinions of others. In Elizabethan days, travel was the fashion. It J was the time when young men went Some to the wars, to try their fortune there; Some to discover islands far away. (I,iii,8—9) and some ‘Ifiiji‘. if." 3‘ ! To see the wonders of the world abroad. (I.i.6) The Elizabethans concurred with Antonio that one Cannot be a perfect man Not being tried and tutor'd in the world. (I,iii,20-1) Antonio exhibits an interest in his son's future, desiring only the best for him. I have considered well his loss of time And how he cannot be a perfect man, Not being tried and tutor'd in the world: Experience is by industry achieved And perfected by the swift course of time. (I,iii,19-23) Aside from behaving as an ideal father should, Antonio suggests an element of self-identification with his scui's situation; as if he were recalling his own youth arui involvement in the same matter. : 3" (n ll‘ 45 Antonio shows his consideration for Proteus' ideas, too. However, Antonio is aware that his son, at times, is ignorant of the things which will do him the most good, so Antonio must be firm. This is evidenced by Antonio's lines lr‘fi when Proteus, upon desiring to join his friend Valentine at the Emperor's court, motivates his father to say: My will is something sorted with his wish. Muse not that I thus suddenly proceed: For what I will, I will, and there an end. I am resolved that thou shalt spend some time With Valentinus in the Emperor's court: What maintenance he from his friends receives, Like exhibition thou shalt have from me. Tomorrow be in readiness to go. Excuse it not, for I am peremptory. ’ “ (I,iii,63-7l) 1". u; -.' '1‘. Look, what thou want'st shall be sent after thee: No more of stay: tomorrow thou must go. (I,iii,74-5) This passage presents even more characteristics of Antonio. we see here a man who is strong-willed, ambi- tious, and not given to great discourse once he has made up his mind. Also, he shows a willingness to spend a considerable amount in order to realize his aims. How- ever, he suggests a warmer manner than the lines indi- cate. This is in reference to the friendly discussion .Antonio has with Panthino earlier and the sudden change 46 of tone in talking to Proteus. In short, while Antonio is being firm with Proteus, he is indicating a knowing wink at Panthino. The only other reference to Antonio's character is {IT noted in a brief exchange between the Duke of Milan and i‘ 1 Valentine: Duke: Know ye Don Antonio, your countryman? Valentine: Ay, my good lord, I know the gentleman P-9 to be of worth and worthy estimation and not without desert so well reputed. Duke: Hath he not a son? Valentine: Ay, my good lord; a son that well deserves The honour and regard of such a father. (III i‘V, 54-60) From this we gather that he is a greatly respected and honourable man: a man who is known for his nobility of character. Antonio is used mainly as a device to get Proteus to the Emperior's court as soon as possible, thus enabling the story to move on without any lapse in the pace of the ‘play. As we can see, there are no complexities in his czharacter. Antonio is a noble, considerate, and under— standing father and master. Also, he is an ambitious, strong-willed, and positive—minded Renaissance gentleman. 47 Since there are no adverse comments or actions to distort this representation, we must assume that Shake- speare intended Antonio to be understood in this manner. Antonio: The Merchant of Venice 'P‘1 This Antonio is the only one of the five who can ; be considered a leading character. In this play, he is the central character; all the action is directly or in— directly centered about him. The main incident which springs the play into motion is Antonio's agreement to lend Bassanio money. This enables Bassanio to go to Belmont and solve the riddle of the caskets to win Portia's hand; it causes Antonio, whose money is all in escrow, to ask Shylock for a loan to be paid upon forfeiture of a pound of Antonio's flesh; it causes Shylock to be so dis- tracted by his hate for Antonio and his demanding of the forfeiture as to lose his Jessica to Lorenzo; it causes ‘the return of the lovers to the scene of the trial and :aubsequently, Portia's disguise as a lawyer; and it cxauses the complication in the rings given to Bassanio and Gratiano by Portia and Nerissa. 48 Antonio is one of the leading merchants of Venice and his ships travel all over the known world. He is es— teemed by all the leading citizens for his wealth and de- pendability. He has all the public virtues; Bassanio describes him as possessing "the ancient Roman honour." If ei‘r—xj s I I The keynote of his character is struck in his line which opens the play. In sooth, I know not why I am so sad. (I,i,l) His sadness seems surprising in a wealthy and admired mer- chant. He seems entirely preoccupied with business and yet shows a deficiency of that combativeness and self- assuranee which we would expect in a successful merchant, though this may be of recent origin. He has a premonition of disaster, at the begin- ning of the play, which suggests a brooding nature. He casts aside the idea of love when it is suggested, and in turn gives the impression that he is a bachelor. The warm springs of humanity seem to have dried up in him long before. He is of a moody nature which breaks forth in sudden violent angers. It is significant that upon tempers like his even the smiles of fortune have a strangely saddening effect. For such a man, even because 49 he is good, is to be haunted with a sense of having more than he truly deserves; and this may not unnaturally in~ spire him with an indefinable dread of some reverse which shall square up the account of his present blessings. Thus, his very happiness works by subtle methods to charge his heart with certain dark forebodings. This unwanted dejection, sweetened as it is with his habitual kindness and good nature, has the effect of showing how dearly he is held by such whose friendship is the fairest earthly purchase of virtue. A kinder gentleman treads not the earth. (I,viii,35) . . .the good Antonio, the honest Antonio-- 0 that I had a title good enough to keep his name company . (II,i,13-15) The dearest friend to me, the kindest man, The best condition'd and unwearied spirit In doing courtesies, and one in whom The ancient Roman honour more appears Than any that draws breath in Italy. (III,ii,295-299) Considering his sobriety, we suspect that the warm friendship of others for him is partly inspired by his wealth, since he is generous to those in distress. If it is true that these friendships survive his bank— ruptcy, this is a tribute to the strength of his i“ 50 friend's gratitude. In his letter to Bassanio when he is about to lose his life, Antonio asks only that his true love for Bassanio be recognized. This sounds as though he wasn't sure that it would even be remembered; if Bas— sanio were so close a friend, he would surely need no re- : minder of it. This presents a problem. Why is Antonio so ready to pledge himself for the sake of a ruined spend— thrift who plans to recoup his fortune by marrying an is" heiress and a man who already owes him a great deal of money? After all, underneath his veneer of Christian no- bility and intentions, Bassanio is nothing more than a sponger and one who is out for a good time-—always with himself in mind and generally alone in that respect. Nevertheless, in the play, Antonio considers the chief value of his money's power is in helping a friend in need. So, he makes a contract with Shylock while proudly invit- ing the Jew to make the most of the opportunity for revenge: If thou wilt lend this money, lend it not As to thy friends; for when did frienship take A breed for barren metal of his friend? But lend it rather to thine enemy, Who, if he break, thou mayst with better face Exact the penalty. (I,iii,133-138) 51 Let us discuss Antonio's relationship with Shylock. Such people, who have no emotion in their own lives, often unconsciously seek an external subject in which they can be- come emotionally involved. With Antonio it is the preju— fen dice against the Jews which he has taken up. He is, by his own admission, violent and demonstra- a tive in his hatradof Shylock. When Shylock reminds him of i all the ways Antonio has abused him, “ You, that did void your rheum upon by beard, And foot me as you spurn a stranger cur Over your threshold. . . (I,iii,118-120) Antonio's answer is: I am as like to call thee so again, To spit on thee again, to spurn thee too. (I,iii,13l-2) Shylock, further, tells us of . . .the ancient grudge I bear him. He hates our sacred nation, and he rails, Even there where merchants most do congregate, On me, my bargains, and my well—won thrift, Which he calls interest. (I,iii,48-52) .Antonio's opposition to taking interest is an old-fashioned ;prejudice, one based upon Christian teachings. It is i1- 1egal for a Christian to lend money for profit, whereas (Jews may lend money to Christians for profit. Antonio has adopted it because it gives him an objective and supposedly IIIII.,AiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllT 52 moral reason for his attitude. This attitude is so rooted in him that when he accepts Shylock's suggested forfeit as a piece of kindness, he looks upon it only as a sign that Shylock may yet "turn Christian." The merchant, too, fresh from denouncing interest, cannot draw back from a bond in which to please him no mention of interest is made. Moreover, he had only just pledged "his purse, his person, his extremest means” to his dearest friend to help him win the heroine with the caskets; generosity, therefore, will not allow him to hesitate. In fact, the first part of the story, the one which is mainly devoted to Antonio's situa- tion, is handled so skillfully that readers are almost divided in sympathy between Antonio and his would-be murderer. To be brief, Antonio has scorned Shylock's reli— gion, deprived him of usurious gains, insulted his person. Therefore, Shylock hates him as a Christian, himself a Jeww hates him as a lender of money gratis, himself a cxmnplaining usurer; hates him as Antonio, himself Shylock. zuui who but a Christian Renaissance gentleman, Lorenzo, cums of Antonio's faith and fellowship, would have stolen away his daughter's heart, drawn her into revolt, and 53 loaded her down with the Jew”s ducats and precious jewels on top of it. Can you blame the man for seeking revenge? Shylock's money—lending is revolting; but Antonio's busi- ness ventures and behavior are glamorous, and the outright robbery and smug, arrogant mockery of the Jew is a gay escapade for Antonio's friends. But how does Antonio feel throughout these proceedings? Antonio's arid life seems to have increased his dejection even before his business failed. Early in the play he told Gratiano: I hold the world but as the world, Gratiano; A stage where every man must play a part, And mine a sad one. (I,i,77-9) During the trial his energy and will to live vanish entirely with his fortune. I am a tainted wether of the flock, Meetest for death: the weakest kind of fruit Drops earliest to the ground; and so let me. (Iv, i, 14-16) He spiritlessly does not fight to save himself before the expiration of the bond or at the trial. In his letter to Bassanio all he says is that he would like to see his friends before he dies, but not if it is inconvenient. He wearies of the efforts of his 54 friends in protracting the trial and asks for immediate sentence. After their return to Belmont, he could relieve Bassanio's troubles in the ring incident, but he stands idly by until matters reach a climax; and even then he does not acknowledge his responsibility in the surrender of the ring. He simply offers a guarantee that his friend will never part with it again. He has become indifferent to life itself. It appears as though his melancholy and aridity of spirit have deepened at the play's end. Antonio's gravity is no mere affectation to gain men's sympathy, but one which he would fain remove, while he encourages a motive of cheerfulness in others, as shown in the description of his parting with Bassanio by Salarino: I saw Bassanio and Antonio part: Bassanio told him he would make some speed Of his return: he answer'd, "Do not so; Slubber not business for my sake, Bassanio, But stay the very riping of the time; And for the Jew's bond which he hath of me, Let it not enter in your mind of love: Be merry, and employ your chiefest thoughts To courtship and such fair ostents of love As shall conveniently become you there:" And even there, his eye being big with tears, Turning his face, he put his hand behind him, And with affection wondrous sensible He wrung Bassanio's hand; and so they parted. (II,viii,36—49) as}... n'fih‘ifiifimu 13"): I1. 1 w 55 But his whole bearing is that of a greatly noble and brave friend. His final speech, when he is preparing to pay the forfeit of his bond, is a strong attempt to speak courageously and consolingly to Bassanio: Give me your hand, Bassanio: fare you well: Grieve not that I am fallen to this for you; For herein Fortune shows herself more kind Than is her custom: it is still her use To let the wretched man outlive his wealth, To view the hollow eye and wrinkled brow An age of poverty; from which lingering penance Of such misery doth she cut me off. Commend me to your honourable wife: Tell her the process of Antonio's end; Say how I loved you, speak me fair in death. And, when the tale is told, bid her be judge Whether Bassanio had not once a love. Repent but you that you shall lose your friend, And he repents not that he pays your debt; For if the Jew do cut deep enough, I'll pay it presently with all my heart. (IV,i,265-281) qr 1(3'1' Y." I "'5 A It concludes with this sort of grave smile and attempted jest which, at such a moment, a serious and sincere man would use to cheer those he loves. When Portia, as the young doctor of laws, asks him if he has anything to say, he takes his due with great nobility, relieving others from blame: Portia: Do you confess the bond? 56 Antonio: I do. (IV,ii,l81-2) Most heartily I do beseech the court To give judgement. (IV,ii,243-4) Portia: You, merchant, have you anything to say? {—1 14ml Antonio: But little: I am arm'd and well prepared. (IV,ii,263-4) And such is Antonio. A kind-hearted and sweet— mannered man; of a large and liberal spirit; affable, gen- 1” erous, and magnificent in his dispositions; patient of trial, indulgent to weakness; free where he loves, and frank where he hates; in prosperity modest, in adversity cheerful; craving wealth for the uses of cirtue, and as the sinews of friendship;--his character is one which we never weary of contemplating. Antonio: Much Ado About Nothing Antonio, in this play, is the brother of the Gov- ernor of Messina, Leonato, and uncle to Hero. There is a Inention of Antonio having a son Leonato: How now, brother! Where is my cousin, your son? hath he provided this music? Antonio: He is very busy about it. (I,ii,l-3) 57 but the son never appears in the play. Beatrice is men- tioned in the dramatis personae as niece to Leonato, and although there is no evidence given of her being Antonio's daughter, there is no mention of Leonato and Antonio having another brother. However, Beatrice and Hero are seen to- gether, behaving as equals, all through the play, much the same as Antonio and Leonato do. Therefore, we shall as- sume that if not in word at least in action Beatrice is Antonio's daughter. His role in the story is as chief advisor to Leonato. The governor frequently calls upon him to dis— charge his edicts and desires; and, coupled with the fact that the two are frequently together, leads this writer to believe that Antonio holds some high position of an execu- tive and/or administrative nature, much like a Secretary of State. Antonio begins the complication of the story with the introduction of hearsay evidence to Leonato. It is in reference to Claudio's love for his niece and the governor's daughter, Hero. 58 The Prince and Count Claudio, walking in a thick- pleached alley in mine orchard, were thus much overheard by a man of mine: the Prince discovered to Claudio that he loved my niece your daughter and meant to acknowledge it this night in a dance; and if he found her accordant, he meant to take the present time by the top and instantly . break with you of it. ;‘*1 (I,ii,9-16) Although this could be mistaken for Antonio's being a L gossip, it should not. In truth, as a state official and a brother, he has his ruler's welfare in mind. He is loy— .-~: a1 and honorable; his brother is ignorant of Hero's love situation, and Antonio is informing Leonato of it, both as a chief advisor and as a dutiful brother. The only identifying characteristics of Antonio are made by Ursula during the masked ball episode (II,i), Antonio, masked, is confronted by Ursula and recognized by her, to which he denies his identity. Ursula then says: Ursula: I know you by the waggling of your head. Antonio: To tell you true, I counterfeit him. Ursula: You could never do him so ill-well, unless you were the very man. Here's his dry hand up and down: you are he, you are he. Antonio: At a word, I am not. 59 Ursula: Come, come, do you think I do not know you by your excellent wit? Can virtue hide itself? Go to, mum, you are he. Graces will appear, and there's an end. (II,i, 120-9) The two allusions to the man's physical state, the wag- . gling head and the "dry hand up and down” indicate either 3 the after effects of some sickness or a nervous and pas— sionate nature, possibly both. The author interprets this as Antonio being a high—strung character who, because ,1, of this emotional state and the pressures of his job, has suffered a stroke at one time and is bearing the after effects of it now. The word "dry" is believed to be mainly in reference to Antonio's humour, thus painting him as a somber person or, at least, one not openly given to jolity. Using this logic, Ursula perhaps realizes that she has made sport of a serious matter and instantly covers up for it by flattery so as to appease the possible ‘wrong she may have done to her superior, she being one of Hero's gentlewomen. However, the allusions in flattery need not go unheeded. She says that he is of excellent xvit, a quality which parallels that of Beatrice. Ursula also mentions Antonio's virtuousness and graces, two qualities for which we have yet to find evidence. a d ‘s, “’ .fiuw— 60 we have just mentioned Antonio's appeasement by flattery. Is his considerate and passionate nature a trifle given to vanity? What is Antonio's weak spot then? Perhaps this can be best clarified in a discourse held in F_j Act V. Don Pedro and Claudio are believed to have lit- erally shamed Hero to death on the day she and Claudio E 1*.— were to be married. A false rumor had it that she was J E a... promiscuous; Claudio heard it, and swore revenge at the altar. Although Hero is not really dead, it is pretended that she is in order to test Claudio's true love. The governor and Antonio meet the two young men, whereupon Claudio slights the governor and causes the pretending to cease. Claudio, who now is taunted into a duel by a truly angered Leonato, ignores the governor's oaths with a smirking nonchalance. It is here that an incensed Antonio, in an outburst of such overwhelming vehemence as to jar the play's lyrical quality, takes the stage: Antonio: He shall kill two of us, and men indeed; But that's no matter; let him kill one first; Win me and wear me; let him answer me. Come, follow me, boy; come, sir boy, come follow me: Sir boy, I'll whip you from your foining fence; Nay, as I am a gentleman, I will. Leonato: Antonio: Leonato: Antonio: Leonato: Antonio: Don Pedro: Leonato: Antonio: Brother—- Content yourself. God knows I loved my niece: And she is dead, slander'd to death by villains, That dare as well answer a man indeed As I dare take a serpent by the tongue: Boys, apes, braggarts, Jacks, milksops! Brother Antony-- Hold your content. What, Man! I know them, yea, And what they weigh, even to the utmost scruple-— Scrambling, out—facing, fashion- monging boys, That lie and cog and flout, deprave and slander, Go anticly, show outward hideousness, And speak off half a dozen dangerous words, How they might hurt their enemies, if they durst; And this is all. But, brother Antony-— Come, 'tis no matter; Do no meddle, let me deal in this. (V,i,80—101) I will not hear you. No? Come, brother; away! I will be heard. And shall, or some of us will smart for it. (V,i,lO7-110) 61 62 New, in the opening of the play, Claudio had been gloriously praised by Leonato and his court for his heroics and gallantry on the field of battle. Surely, if moved to defend himself, the young warrior would have little trouble F“ in handling the two older men. Undoubtedly, it is Claudio's .‘q. confidence in his youth and skill which causes him to be condescending to the older men's ragings. Too, it is the We “‘thfle.’ -‘ ' 6‘ ‘1 -1 ‘ ‘ y . pride of Antonio, the impulsiveness of Leonato, and the passionate nature of both which ultimately moves Antonio to such a tirade against the youth. Nevertheless, Antonio is a brave man and is sincere in his wrath, regardless of the absurd and somewhat comical undertones. Here, we see an Antonio quite different from the one in the early acts; he is an old lion who still knows how to bare his fangs. He also has the ability to stave off his brother's interjections when moved to the point of anger. He even gets the last word. Antonio, appearing in only four scenes, does not present great complexities of character. However, in the light of his position and his nature, we see that Antonio is no Polonius: the man is loyal and consci- entious without being a meddler, he is honorable without 63 being affected and offensive, he is sincere without being false, he is vehement and aggressive without being a braggart or a fool. Again, too, he is vain and proud, but appreciatively so. The character does not seem to be comical, either. E~fi1 He has none of the Shakespearean comic characteristics such as: gossip, idle chatter, deceit, love implications . and delusions, or misunderstanding. i.5 Moreover, since the play is so predominantly light and lyrical, characters of a more serious nature must pre— sent a stabilizing element lest the play become too insip- id to endure and too saccharine to be effective. Antonio is a more realistic character, too. His speeches are to the point and quite informative, moving the action with better speed. He is, in short, too worthy a man, too wise a court politician, and too honest and outspoken to be otherwise: the unity of his character remains constant. Antonio: Twelfth Night Antonio, in this play, is a sea captain. Although, as with the Antonio of Much Ado About Nething, he appears in only four scenes, he is an interesting character. Antonio's first appearance in the play (II,i) firmly establishes the groundwork for his character. The scene tells of Sebastian's recovery from the sea and his recuperation onboard Antonio's ship. Here we learn of Antonio's compassionate and considerate nature. Apparent 1y, Antonio has befriended the young man without asking anything about Sebastian all during the latter's recov- ery, as evidenced in Sebastian's speech: But I perceive in you so excellent a touch of modesty that you will not extort from me what I am willing to keep in; therefore it charges me in manners the rather to express myself. You must know of me then, Antonio, my name is Sebastian, (II,i,12-l7) Obviously, and without question, Antonio is a good, con- siderate, and compassionate man. Thereupon, Sebastian proceeds to tell Antonio the story of the storm that separated him from Viola and his belief that she is dead. The two men have become quite close during Sebastian's recovery and it is this very affection for each other that sets the tale into full swing. In it, too, we hear of Antonio's constant vigil over the young stranger whom he rescued until the latter's restoration to health. 64 65 Sebastian: . . . for some hour before you took me from the breach of the sea was my sister drowned. (22-4) 0 good Antonio, forgive me your trouble. Antonio: If you will not murder me for my love, let me be your servant. Sebastian: If you will not undo what you have done, that is, kill him whom you have recovered, desire it not. Fare ye well at once: my :11r bosom is full of kindness. . .I am bound to the Count Orsino's court: farewell. (II,i,35-44) This not only further emphasizes the loyalty and trusting characteristics of Antonio's nature, it also emphasizes the "confusion of identity” element in the main plot. Sebastian's leave-taking shows us another char- acteristic of Antonio. The man is wanted in Illyria by OrsiJna for crimes committed against the duke and his fleet. He knows that to set foot in Illyria is to in- vite danger of arrest and imprisonment But, come what may, I do adore thee so, That danger shall seem sport, and I will go. (II,i,48-9) because 66 Being skilless in these parts; which to a stranger, Unguided and unfriended, often prove Rough and unhospitable (III,iii,9-11) thus showing that he cares for Sebastian's safety. Here, we see a man who is so loyal to someone he likes, a per- son whom he hardly knows, that he will jeopardize his own welfare and make sport of the danger. Further on, in Act III, Scene iii, we witness Antonio give his entire purse to Sebastian in the best manner. It is homely, natural, and without ostentation: Hold, sir, here's my purse. In the south suburbs, at the Elephant, Is best to lodge. I will bespeak our diet, While you beguile the time, and feed your knowledge With reviewing of the town: there shall you have me. Haply your eye shall light upon some toy You have desire to purchase; and your store, I think, is not for idle markets, sir. (III,iii,44-6) In that short scene it is interesting to note how the general character and previous career of the seamen respond to this unaffected proffer of a bounteous liv- ing——kindness. Antonio shows himself the epitome of a trusting and devoted friend. 67 The mistaken identity situation shows us the more robust side to the character. Antonio, searching for Sebastian, comes upon the disguised Viola in the throes of doing combat with Sir Andrew. Mistaking Viola for Sebas- tian, Antonio walks into the middle of the argument and i champions his young friend against the comical assailants. 1 Antonio: Put up your sword. If this young gentleman Have done offence, I take the fault on me; If you offend him, I for him defy you. I)“. TN‘ 3 4 Sir Toby: YOu, sir! vflmn what are you? Antonio: One, sir, that for his love dares yet do more Than you have heard him brag to you he will. (III,iv,43—8) Antonio has caused such a row with Viola's an— tagonists that officers of the Duke appear. Antonio is :fiound out and arrested. When all the commotion has died down somewhat, Antonio asks Viola for his purse, What will you do, now my necessity Makes me to ask you for my purse? It grieves me Much more for what I cannot do for you Than what befalls myself. (III,iv,368-7l) whereupon Viola confesses her ignorance of it: 68 What money, sir? For the fair kindness you have show'd me here, And, part, being prompted by your present trouble, Out of my lean and low ability I'll lend you something: (III,iv,375-9) She will lend him something! Here is an Antonio scorned into a rage, but he is trying to subdue it, and appeals to the mistaken twin's remembrance of the kindness Antonio has shown to him. Is't possible that my' deserts to you Can lack persuasion? Do not tempt my misery, Lest that it make me so unsound a man As to upbraid you with those kindnesses That I have done for you. And what does Viola answer? I know of none; Nor know I you by voice or any feature. I hate ingratitude more in a man Than lying, vainness, babbling, drunkenness, Or any taint of vice. (III,iv,386—90) This completely amazes Antonio and, after recovering from the initial shock, cries: O heavens themselves! (III,iv, 391) Antonicn trying now to explain the situation of the purse, is lxaing dragged away by the officers and, as he goes off, rails: 69 But 0 how vile an idol proves this god! Thou hast, Sebastian, done good feature shame. In nature there's no blemish but the mind; ane can be call'd deform'd but the unkind: (III,iV, 399—402) Antonio, here, has also triggered the solving of the twin identity complication in describing the kindness he has shown to Sebastian. Viola is now beside herself with anticipation for discovering her brother. The last appearance Antonio makes is in Act V, Scene i. This is his trial by Orsino, the unraveling of the identity situation, and the final matching up of the lovers. Even here, Antonio defends himself with dignity; his spirits are not depressed. Orsino, noble sir, Be pleased that I shake off these names you give me: Antonio never yet was thief or pirate, Though I confess, on base and ground enough, Orsino's enemy. (V,i,75-79) Antonio shows a great sense of pride in the face of his enemy and apparently has shown it before and quite cour- ageously, too, for Orsino pays him tribute for it: A bawbling vessel was he captain of, For shallow draught and bulk unprizable, With which such scathful grapple did he make With the most noble bottom of our fleet. That very envy and the tongue of loss Cried fame and honour on him. (V,i,57-62) It. 70 The truth of Orsino's charge of piracy is never explained, as it is really of no importance in the action. It is likely that Antonio will meet with lenient treatment by the Duke at Sebastian's intercession, especially since 'F“1 Sebastian is to become Orsino's brother—in—law, as reward I i for his friendship and nobility of soul. In terms of dramatic usage, Antonio is chiefly a dramatic device serving to account for Sebastian's rescue and presence in Illyria, to complicate the action by his confusion of Viola for Sebastian in his appeal to the former to return his purse, and to give a glimpse of Orsino in his capacity as ruler and judge. Antonio, the sea captain, is a delightful speci- 1nen.of that frank, open, and prodigal nature so common in 'the nautical character-—at all events, in the English sai- lor. He is brave but somewhat foolhardy. He is a warm- }uearted, hot—headed sailor, ready to take on an enemy's JLife in fair fight or to lose his own on his friend's be- }ualf. His loyalty borders on recklessness--the type of seadog of whom England was fond in the days of Drake, Hawkins, and the Armada. 71 Antonio: The Tempest Antonio, in this play, is the most difficult of the five characters to analyze. The problem here is that Shake- speare has transcended the world of the real; his concern is now with deeper and more universal truths than he was while writing his histories and the flippant, sparkling, and brittle early comedies. This is a Shakespeare who has al- ready written his four great tragedies. Naturally, this is not to say that Shakespeare has transcended the art of playwriting, too. It is simply that the manner in which he treats his dramatic materials is different. In the opening scene we see a ship being torn apart at sea and the members onboard beside themselves with fear, trying to make a last effort to save the vessel and themselves. There are two men, however, who do not take .part in the work of saving the ship: Antonio and Sebastian. Instead of working, they blame the ship mas- 'ter for being the cause of the tempest: Hang, cur! hang, you whoreson, insolent noisemaker! we are less afraid to be drowned than thou art. (I,i,46-8) 72 we are merely cheated of our lives by drunkards. This wide—chapp'd rascal-would thou mightst lie drowning The washing of ten tides! (I,i,58—6l) As the ship, with all hands, is going down, Antonio yells out: Let's all sink with the King. (I,i,67) but Sebastian utters the truthful words in the next line: Let's take leave of him. (I,i,68) Of course, this last line is intended for Antonio's ears only. But, Sebastian is the King's own brother, why should he want him dead? And what about Antonio who, by the dramatisppersonae, we see to be the Duke of Milan? What is the connection between these two men? we do not know for sure, but we assume that they are apparently up to no good. After the sinking of the ship, the next scene is a pastoral one which ushers in Prospero and his daughter .Miranda. In a moment of weakness, Prospero tells Miranda of the episode which caused their ultimate existence on the island. It is here we learn more of Antonio, too. . I \ _—. ; . - Vivi- 73 My brother and thy uncle, call'd Antonio-- I pray thee, mark me—-that a brother should Be so perfidious!--he whom next thyself Of all the world I loved and to him put The manage of my state; as at that time Through all the signories it was the first And Prospero the prime duke, being so reputed In dignity, and for the liberal arts Without a parallel; those being all my study, The government I cast upon my brother And to my state grew stranger, being transported And rapt in secret studies. Thy false uncle-- (I.ii.66-77) Prospero also mentions the fact that Antonio inserted his own men and either threw those loyal to Prospero out or else turned them against him. Here is the background the play is laid against: the usurped throne of Milan. Antonio certainly seems to be quite a treacherous individual. But what about Prospero's mention of giving the power to Antonio, while he went to practice his cryptic experiments in the back room? Perhaps Antonio thinks his brother fit only for the back room, and he, Antonio, should be the real Duke of Milan since appar- ently, he is the only one who cares about its management. This is something to bear in mind when considering Antonio's intentions. However, Antonio has gotten rid of Prospero and Miranda by casting them adrift on the open sea. So, 74 Antonio has transgressed both against the Duke of Milan and his own brother. Fatherhood, old age, and kingship were the most venerable qualities in a man during the Renais- sance; Antonio has obviously sinned against all three in one deed. : ' After the storm, the shipwrecked men reach dry h 1and—-Prospero's island. Everyone seems quite amazed at their miraculous state of being completely dry, unmarked, é,~, and unsoiled; all, that is, except Antonio who entices Sebastian into making fun of Gonzalo, an old and vener- able counsellor and one-time friend to Prospero. Soon an invisible Ariel comes playing solemn music which causes everyone to sleep except Antonio and Sebastian. Taking advantage of the situation, Antonio says: They dropp'd, as by a thunderstroke. What might, WCrthy Sebastian? 0, What might? No more; And yet methinks I see it in thy face, What thou shoulds't be. The occasion speaks thee, and My strong imagination sees a crown Dropping upon they head. (II,i,204-9) In this we see the relationship in its true per- spective: Antonio is trying to side up to, and win over, Sebastian. Antonio wants Sebastian to usurp the throne 75 of Naples. And of course if Sebastian does, Antonio will be the real power behind the throne. Antonio will rule Milan and Naples, thus making him the most powerful man in Italy. Antonio has studied his Machiavelli very well. A _‘ pact is made between the two conspirators and they are .1 about to kill Alonso, the King of Naples, when Ariel re— enters to waken the sleepers, thus foiling the assassina-' tion attempt. .? Why does Antonio want Alonso dead? As Prospero states: . . .confederates-— So dry he was for sway-—in'the King of Naples. (I,ii,lll—112) thus showing that Antonio and Alonso conspired to bring about Prospero's downfall. Prospero further attests to Antonio's motivation for wanting Alonso dead: Tc>give him annual tribute, do him homage Subject his coronet to his crown and bend The dukedom yet unbow'd--alas, poor Milan!-— To most ignoble stooping. (I,ii,113-16) Antonio, galled by his subordination to Prospero, seeks by treachery and violence to free himself from the ties that bind him to Alonso, his first partner in crime, and thus commit his triple-guilt sin a second 76 time. Antonio has been hardened in sin by the lapse of years. Even as Duke of Milan he has not been satisfied. He has found it galling to pay tribute to Alonso as his overlord. He is attempting to rid himself of this bur- den. As can be determined by his crimes and intrigues, f-_1. he is a born plotter and completely without conscience. In his scenes with Sebastian he is both subtle, persua- sive and quite imaginative. Antonio is truly an extra- Lil" ordinary man. It is equally extraordinary that Antonio never shows a good side to his character; in fact, he is the only one in the story who is completely assigned to play on one aspect of his personality. The others fluctuate, he does not. Not all the courtiers can be expected to move on the same moral plane. Some are capable of entering into the "brave new world” of grace. In Antonio and Sebastian there is no such repentance, and therefore, no corres— ponding reconciliation. They did not sleep, which is a symbol of penitence and regeneration. Forgiveness and condemnation are fused into a single gesture, and Antonio is by his own choice excluded from the brave new world 77 which his presence must in itself destroy. This attests to Antonio's one—sided behavioral pattern. While on the island, the visitors are abstracted from their normal selves, enter into a state of temporary isolation in which their surface qualities are cast aside, and in which the true being that has inspired their behavior comes to the surface. Shakespeare has shown the tendency in bad men to indulge in scorn and contemptuous expressions as a mode of getting rid of their own uneasy feelings of inferiority, and also of rendering the transition to wickedness easy, by making the good ridiculous. Shakespeare never puts habitual scorn into the mouth of other bad men--so with Antonio. He must be a superficial reader who does not perceive in the hollow jests and bullying deportment a sense of unreality: he is not aware of his abstracted state. Even his subconscious inferiority is unknown to him; he uses a false bravado to overcome his true sense of dread. At the end of the third act when Ariel and his assistants create strange shapes, music, miracles, and noises so as to confuse the courtiers, Antonio runs off to prepare himself against further apparitions, although he is fleeing from fear as well. 78 I'll seek him deeper than e'er plummet Alonso: sounded And with him there lie mudded. Sebastian: But one fiend at a time, I'll fight their legions o'er. Antonio: I'll be thy second. (III,iii,10l-103) However, from this we also see that Antonio is not leading the pack, although his bravado is still there. But he has rust got the drive that he had earlier; he appears quite frwantic in the face of the wonderous apparitions. Could truis have squelched Antonio to the point where he is be— (girrning to doubt himself? Is his abstracted state becom- irug’ a learning process which also betrays his fear? The enemies have been brought to the island to learn, to leave a world of shadow and fancy for re- assimilation into a truly civilized order. In this p>rrmcess of education the fundamental need is, inevitably, for repentance. Repentance is the necessary consequence, on the human side of accepting judgment. The others have learned because they slept, but Auntxniixo has not learned, he has become mixed and conse~ quently is broken on the wheel of his own ambition. In t . . . . he entire last act Antonio says one speech and it IS 79 nebulous. From this we can assume that he is, indeed, quite beaten, painfully knowing that all has been for nought, and he shall never be anything more than a vassal. At the end-—the time of Prospero's victory-- Antonio is sternly rebuked and bidden to surrender the fruit of his deeds. Prospero is convinced that Antonio and Alonso have repented, and when Ariel brings them be- fore him, he orders Antonio to restore his kingdom and g,;i treats him well, in spite of the outward faqade Pros- pero assumes. But Prospero is mistaken, Antonio is not repentant; he is a broken man but a defiant one, still believing that he is a better man and abler ruler than Prospero. The overall impression of his character, in ‘ spite of his intrigues and outcome, is as a conscience- less, arrogant, self-opinionated nobleman, too conscious <5f his social rank, too ambitious to improve it, and too stubborn to believe he is wrong. Thus we have analyzed the character of the five Antonios as revealed by source materials and script anal- ysijs. Let us now turn to a comparison of these findings tc>ends where they ennoble, not degrade. The first Anttniio does not openly show that he retains these facul— ties EWWLhe does give indication or a suggestion of hav- ix 3 them by the image he creates. The Merchant Antonio rmnat be composed of these, since no mention is given of 90 his inheriting his wealth and position, and he is one of the leading merchants in Venice. His braveness and anxiety are compatible with his ability to execute his business en- deavors with celerity and efficiency. Antonio in Much Ado possesses these qualities, but they are only seen in re- flection by his loyalty and pride in his position and his concern for the state. A few other similarities can be stated, which are in accordance with the lines and general images of the characters. One is the fact that all are concerned with, in giving, taking or having, money and material wealth. Antonio of Much Ado does not actually fall into this sim- ilarity, but he most certainly has wealth due to his high position. Antonio of The Tempest, true to form, is the opposite of the first four. We assume that he has money, because of his position, and that he uses it to further his own ends quite freely. However, it is coupled with his desire for prestige and power. Another instance bearing witness to this characteristic is his aim to rid himself of a pecuniary obligation to the King of Naples. The Antonios of the other three plays are ob- 'viously concerned with wealth: Antonio of Two Gentlemen (I, 91 is willing to spend freely so as to make Proteus quite comfortable at the Emperor's court; The Merchant Antonio is so immersed in monetary problems that to refute it is absurd; Antonio in Twelfth Night lends Sebastian his purse :-*1 in a magnificent gesture of generosity and is taken while i . asking for its return. Another facet for similarity is i the almost stoic resistance to fear and especially, fear ; of death. Again, due to the brevity of his role, Antonio in Two Gentlemen gives no indication of this. The Mer- chant patiently awaits the death sentence. Antonio in Much Ado openly antagonizes his younger and greatly re— puted warrior foe, Claudio, to combat. Antonio of Twelfth Night bravely intercedes for Viola against Sir Toby and friends. Antonio in The Tempest, although not directly concerned with the fear of death, apparently possesses a stoic facade against it, as evidenced by his brazen tactics and his behavior in the presence of Ariel's extraordinary contrivances and magical presentations. Another similarity, aside from their characters, is that they all have something to do with the sea. Here, too, there is one exception and it is the Antonio of Much Ado. The first Antonio, in his exchange with Proteus, talks about going abroad and the fact that travel is a prime requisite 92 for developing a complete and well-rounded gentleman. He is convinced that Proteus shall journey abroad and sends him on a trip to meet with Valentine at the Emperor's court. The Merchant Antonio is obviously concerned with the sea; it destroys his ships, causing him to pay the forfeit of his bond. Too, Antonio of Twelfth Night is only too obviously concerned with the sea. Antonio of The Tempest likewise falls into this category having been shipwrecked and left on a lonely island. As far as dramatic convention is concerned, each Antonio is employed as a device to either reveal or trig- ger the main plot and inciting action of his play. .Antonio in Two Gentlemen starts complications by sending Proteus to court where he (Proteus) is to develop his intrigue. The Merchant Antonio, by agreeing to give Bassanio money, triggers the action of the two main purits: his own predicament with Shylock and the bond, anui the Bassanio-Portia love story. Antonio in Much Ado firs-the one who reveals the hearsay love situation between Claudio and Hero, which promotes the idea of their being brought together in wedlock. Antonio in Twelfth Nignt is the device by his trusting nature which enables 93 Sebastian to reveal his relationship and twin identity with his thought-to-be-lost sister Viola. Antonio in The Temp- est gives rise to the plotting and necromantic develop- ment of Prospero, when he casts the usurped duke and his daughter adrift upon the sea. Therefore, in View of the fact that the roles Shakespeare himself played were of the type belonging to Antonio in Two Gentlemen; that Henry Cundall was the per- son who would be assigned to play the Antonios of _T_l_1_e_ Merchant of Venice, Twelfth Night and The Tempest; that Cundall could have acted all five Antonios; and that the five characters, although somewhat individual in detail and context, are quite similar in their passions, moods, and personalities on a general level; we can say, with cIlztite a degree of confidence, that there is a red thread, even more than one, which ran through all the Antonios. From the previous discussion of the characteristics each person exhibited or suggested, it may also be said that Shakespeare may have had a set idea in mind as to which character would be given a certain name, and in our case, the name of Antonio, especially since he 1 p ayed the first one himself. 94 Under the weight of these considerations it can be assumed that there are sufficient similarities to justify the major thesis presented. '1 011' .;J ‘—.’. DoD'thjo.‘ -| F. 95 CHAPTER.V THE ANTONIOS ONSTAGE Elizabethan Theories of Acting Of all the documents, manuals, and passages ‘writiuen about the art of Elizabethan acting, there is none inhich deals with its performance as definitely and concirsely as Hamlet's advice to the players: Hamlet: Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounc'd it to you, trippingly on the tongue. But if you mouth it, as many of our players do, I had as lief the town-crier spoke my lines. NOr do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus, but use all gently; for in the very tor- rent, tempest, and, as I may say, the whirlwind of passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness. 0, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig- pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ear of groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumbshows and noise. I would have such a fellow whipped for o'erdoing Terma- gant. It out-herods Herod. Pray you, avoid it. . . .Be not too tame neither, but let your own discretion be your tutor. Suit the action to the word, the word to the action; with this spec- ial observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature; for anything so overdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature; to show virtue ILL)? '.; ! 96 her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure. New this overdone, or come tardy off, though it make the unskillful laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve; the censure of the which one must in your allowance o'erweigh a whole theatre of others. 0, there be players that I have seen play, and heard others praise, and that highly, not to speak it profanely, that neither having the accent of Christians nor the gait of Christian, pagan, nor man, have so strutted and bellowed that I have thought some of nature's journeymen had made men and not made them well, they imitated humanity so abominably. (III,ii,l—40) Most, if not all other, discourses on the subject of acting are in conjunction with the proper method of Elizabethan oratory. Since great emphasis was placed up- on the vocal aspect of performance, many similarities be- tween the two were brought out, and rules were given per— taining to both oratory and acting.36 The main separation between the two was, of course, action: the division be- tween dramatic and non-dramatic literature. It was only natural to expect a good deal of emphasis to be put upon proper vocal delivery because of the literary form of Elizabethan plays, which was verse. Similarly this 6 Bertram Joseph, Elizabethan Acting (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 60. 97 emphasis would be natural in modern verse plays, too. So this emphasis is not without proper justification and posi- tion in the dictates of acting in verse. But Elizabethans were wont to put a greater attachment to vocal delivery Frnfii aside from the demands of the literary form. It was a i matter of training. It went back to their earliest years in school. i i During the days of Elizabeth, boys at school were trained in oratory. Rules and admonitions were to be found in the school text—books. Proper vocal modulation and proper descriptive gestures were emphasized as well as the stressing of key words. The training involved exercises in pronouncing sentences of varying emotions and images to be conveyed. Boys had to familiarize them- selves with patterns of sound, such as rhyme, allitera- tion, assonance, and climax, each with a vocal technique suitable to its purposes.37 The mind, trained to recog- nize certain demands from the dialogue, coupled with a Li 7Bertram Joseph, The Tragic Actor (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1959), p. 14. 98 fine vocal technique could effect wonders without losing pace in the scene. Expression in language consisted of five processes: $2.571 invention, disposition, elocution, memory, and pronuncia- I 1 I 3 8 o a I 0 tion. PronunCiation, for the most part, is explained above. Memory is the simple faculty of recalling rules and technique for application. Invention refers to what ideas belong to the subject under consideration and how to treat them. Disposition is the structuring of ideas with regard to development of the whole. Elocution is pri- marily the sense of style, the adequate expression of thought and emotion in language perfectly suited to the subject that exists in the author's intentions; this is to include practice in composition and a close study of theoretical works. In short, invention makes the choice of ideas, disposition arranges them, whilst elocution shapes and clothes them in words.39 Elizabethan voice production involved what is known nowadays as a sustained tone. When competently 38Elizabethan Acting, p. 23. 39Ibid., p. 29. 99 managed to express meaning and emotion, the voice produces sounds like natural speaking. However, we should bear in mind that, because of its universal emphasis and study . . o . !r——, l... since early schooling, the Elizabethan v0ice in general fl had more melody in it than the ordinary modern speaking voice used off and on the stage today. The ordinary speaking voice relies too much on stress, not using its range of pitch changes either fully or frequently enough. But with a sustained tone the speaker can take full ad- vantage of the natural ability of the voice to emphasize by stress, by changing the length of syllables, and by changes of pitch--i.e., by elevation and cadence. He still uses only the tones normal to his speaking voice, but he is able to make use of them all more often, pro- ducing a greater variety of sound as he expresses emo— tion and the complexities of meaning, and reflects in it complicated rhythms and patterns. And all this can be done without ever deserting the intonations of col— loquial speech. 40 The Tragic Actor, p. 15. 100 When an actor does not use a sustained tone, or does not sustain it sufficiently, he finds that he has to make use of pauses when he wishes to enable an audience to become aware of the structural complexities of verse and all the nuances of a line packed with meaning. With the sustained tone, however, there is no need to pause to do these things, as complexity in the lines can be mirrored in changes of pitch. If the speaker does not fully im- agine what he is saying, he will tend to fall into a chant; but when he translates his completely imagined awareness of his lines into articulate sound, his intonations are quite natural with no trace of chant. The speaker uses a sustained tone, but what the listener hears seems to be natural speaking.41 These training methods and tech- niques were acquired in a fashion similar to those used for singing. It is true that, for the most part, Elizabethan characters were built upon a foundation provided by deco- rum or the prescribed manner of behavior required of all 41ibid., p. 16. 101 . 42 . . persons of good breeding. Also, it is true that the sub- stance of external action, for the most part, was exhibited by Elizabethan orators and players alike. However, action is the division between dramatic and non-dramatic litera- f- 1 l in . ture. Therefore, modern orators and actors, although di- i vided by this element in delivery, are similar to each other in vocal exercises, training, and evoking of images for the audience. In short, whether the theory is Eliza- bethan or modern, the conception of it is applicable to both types of performance, the sense of action in terms of character portrayal is the difference. And, is it not also true that modern dramatic characters are built upon a foundation provided by decorum, i.e. the dictates of present day fashions, conventions, and literary forms? Elizabethan dramatists wrote plays to make money and gain social favor, as did the actors in the performing of the plays. The same ambition is held by present day drama— tists and actors. And, whereas, both ages agree in artistic aspirations, the factor which makes the artistic and material aspects a realized truth is the acceptance 4 2Elizabethan Acting, p. 95. 102 by the audience, Elizabethan or modern. This is in ap- position to the styles of both stages with regard to dra- matic conventions and the theories behind them. The play was rendered as a poem in its broadest sense without detracting in any way from its quality as drama. This contributed powerfully to the performances of the characters. The fact that the actor spoke his lines as verse rather than prose did not mean that he was any- thing but completely identified with the character whom he impersonated and whose words they were. The reasoning behind the Elizabethan's code of decorum and behavior (or, in a modern sense, Elizabethan psychology) taught that it was natural to show emotions, to allow the inside to be shown on the outside.43 Wheth- er simple or complicated, the physiological foundation of psychology, or the Elizabethan concept of humours, determined ultimately how a person spoke and the manner of his action. Reason was the divine part, by means of which human beings knew God. It showed itself in erect stature, grace of movement, beauty of body, and--most 43Ibid., p. 106. I“) __.-_._.._ -_ 103 important of all from the point of view of education-- beauty of speech. Unless given any reason to think other— wise, the Elizabethan audience accepted the actor's words . 44 1‘ as expreSSing the character's thoughts. . As the internal affection became more vehement, the external persuasion was to be more potent. The great precautionary measure extolled by all critics and schol- ars of oratory and acting in Elizabethan times was to "shun affectation."45 Characters who on stage affected a superficial nature which was the opposite of their true nature were considered the most dangerous. It follows then that actors trained their limbs with arduous exer- cises involving strict muscular control. This control was mandatory if the outward technique was to serve the purposes of the inner inspiration. Just as present day actors are supposed to do, the Elizabethan actor used all his resources to make his character live in the best pos- sible way for his audience. 44Ibid. 45Ibid., p. 51. 104 With regard to the style of Elizabethan acting we see that the aim of the Elizabethan players was the same as the aim of the present day actor: to appear "natural" to the audience. Unfortunately, we often judge Shakespeare and his contemporaries in accordance with the naturalis- tic concept of drama, without intending to do so, because we have not been able to arrive at a clear understanding of the principles governing the Elizabethans in their art. The Elizabethan idea of applying a certain technique to evoke a certain desired external or vocal presentation does not mean the Elizabethan style is, in any sense, stereotyped. Whenever the actual details of a technique are set down in a manual, they must inevitably appear codified to those who do not share the tradition which made them live. The moderns who believe that the Eliza- bethan style of acting was declamatory and formal because of the manuals, may suffer similar criticisms of their modern style in years to come because of the innumerable acting guides, theories, and texts which are being advocated. Gracefulness of action was the greatest pleasure of a play--to see it acted and not simply well narrated. 105 Thomas Heywood, in his Apology for Actors, states that no motion or gesture should be forced, rough, or violent, nor should an actor make unseemly faces in the delivery of his words. The actor should not stare, draw his mouth awry, confound his voice in the hollow of his throat. The actor should not “teare his words hastily betwixt his teeth," behave like a madman, nor stand still like a "livelesse Image, demurely plodding, and without any smooth motion." The hands were extremely important in Elizabethan acting, because their movements were believed to show the mental sources from which they arose.47 A dull and slow— witted person moved his hands, and the rest of his body, in a slow and heavy manner. The left hand signified a man of questionable character, such as a thief or anyone else with an unlawful desire and rapacity. Elizabethan actors were in the habit of using the trembling hand to reveal externally the depth of the passion of the moment. 4 6Thomas Heywood, "An Apology for Actors,“ (1612), Early Treatises on the Stage (London: Shakespeare Society, 1853). P. 29. 47The Tragic Actor, p. 19. 106 2:1: was also fitting to stike the breast. The manner of the sst:ricken forehead signified a feeling of dolour, shame, or atnnazement. Bertram Joseph shows illustrations of 120 dif- ifeerent positions for the hands and what mood or emotion 4 each represents. 8 Mobile and expressive facial features were also Ileaeded. The nobleman, even when he was a villain, was \feary graceful, much more so than any commoner, and magni- 15:icent in his bearing. This regal bearing was the main external device in separating the classes of the charac— tmers: to be of noble birth was to act in a noble fashion. IEn.the days of Elizabeth, the distinction between the Eiristocracy and the common people was clear in every way. Imevertheless, in each case of rank, age, and occupation, ‘the distinguishing, or typifying, mark was regarded as 'the result of a spiritual cause. Whatever was done with ‘the hands, eyes, face, attitude, and limbs, was for one main Ipurpose, to allow what was being imagined and felt with- :in to reveal itself in action without. The training was iflormal in its dictates, much the same as that of the 4 8Elizabethan Acting, Figs. 2-6, pp. 40ff. 107 nncmdern stage, but it also exercised and trained the play— eaxr's imagination. The Elizabethan who had really mastered irijws techniques and rules of voice and body would have been Eilolle to keep a smoothness and balance in his character, Ga‘ften in the fiercest whirlwind of emotion. Like actors of today, Elizabethan players were (51>:servant of people in everyday life, noticing how they Ireaaacted and behaved in general.49 Also, they were quite Ob servant of their fellow actors and how their emotions VVEEIe projected to the audience--where nature turns to art, 1:1'1e external image of an internal mind. There is every reason to believe that Elizabethan actors (dramatists, too) thought that they were imitating Ireal life in their presentation of characters, and that tflais was how their work was accepted by their audiences. Ehach kind of action had the same object, the imitation of hLunan emotions as seen in the then contemporary human IDeaing. To say that Elizabethan acting was formal and stereotyped is a vote against the actors' imaginations, Eirl insult to their intelligence, and a suggestion that ‘ 49 The Tragic Actor, pp. 7, 19. 108 Burbage and Alleyn were willing to conform to stock acting patterns. It is because Burbage and Alleyn were such prime examples of the Elizabethan methods raised to an art form that they were considered the greatest actors of their . ,_ day. They took the rules and guides, fitted them to their {flu} imaginations, shaped them to conform to their characters, and achieved the ideal. This is what we are concerned T'Z’TAW‘~ a .r' _ I i with here--the ideal. Rules and manuals are of no use by themselves. They need imagination in application in order to be of a true benefit. Does not this also apply to mod- ern theories of acting? Do not present day actors advo- cate one approach more than another? Are they to be called formal and stereotyped because of it? Elizabethan techniques of voice, face, and ges— ture lived in the practice of individual actors because they were not stereotyped, but subordinate to the dom- inant.needs of the imagination and emotions. The emo- 'tions which the actor portrayed, the inflexions of his \niice, the movements of his body, were derived immediate- lgrzfrom the actual details of the poet's lines. That IiLizabethan acting varied in accordance with the style mum‘s—nth a 109 of the words to be spoken is something that we can assume without fear of contradiction. That is what Shakespeare tells us with suiting the action to the word. The speech was fitted to the person and the action gdflm to the speech. There was no imposing of a false formal - style on a work to which it did not belong; instead, the style of the acting expressed the style of the work, : eliciting in performance the essential spirit of the play. 1.4: The acting suited the style of the words, and as a re- sult gave the spectators a truthful view of the charac- ters, who, above all, lived with a genuine life. New that we have discussed Elizabethan acting teChniques and ideals we can proceed to the individual Antonios. As we have seen, Elizabethan and modern act- ing differ in terms of training methods, and the tech— niques of performing in a dominant literary form--verse, as opposed to naturalistic dialogue, otherwise the bas- ic ideals peculiar to the two styles are similar--to 'hold the mirror up to nature--to appear as natural hu- :man beings. Therefore, in incorporating the Eliza- bethan style of acting to the interpretation of the five Antonios in portrayal, the things to bear in mind .11“ ‘ 110 are the sustained tone and the proper delivery of the demands dictated by the use of verse as dialogue. It is assumed that the reader will combine these considerations with those of a physical nature contained in the follow- ing pages while reading. we shall now look to each character, not in terms of establishing movement or other such stage directions for they are too arbitrary. The method to be employed will be a consideration of each character's physical and emotional make-up as determined by his lines and actions and how they may be presented so as to coincide with the ideal interpretation of the role. Antonio in Two Gentlemen of Verona Antonio here is the least significant of all five Antonios. He is not a complex character, so a greatly detailed analysis is not possible. What are his physical characteristics and how should they be treated? First of all, he is a man in his late forties or early fifties. Therefore, he should probably wear a beard, so as to contribute to his noble countenance and maturity. His carriage is of a noble 111 man, as are all the Antonios. His hair is grey at the temples, and he is richly dressed. His movements should be graceful and his physical actions, in general, should bear the external evidence of his kindly attitude. The element which is omnipresent in his character is his strong will. True, he is considerate, kind, and a good master, but these are conditional. Since he is on- stage for such a brief period, this element must be quick- ly established in his character. Upon his entrance and his opening lines Tell me, Panthino, what sad talk was that Wherewith my brother held you in the Cloister? (I,iii,1-2) we behold a man light in manner, but sincere and firm in his convictions, and very sure of himself. His behavior with his servant, Panthino, is not in a condescending manner but an appreciative one. He is attentive to the advice of his servant and welcomes Panthino's good counsel. The two have a mutual respect for one another. He is not demanding with his son, Proteus, either. He realizes his son's lack of ex- perience in travel and wishes to send him abroad to 112 Valentine at the Emperor's court. His manner is not as though he were issuing a decree. It is quite matter—of— fact, as though Proteus should realize that it is for his own good. Antonio is really young at heart. He smiles and jests with Panthino and Proteus. Although this is not motivated by the lines, we need a sense of familiarity or physical contact amongst the men. Perhaps, when Antonio asserts his will My will is something sorted with his wish. Muse not that I thus suddenly proceed: For what I will, I will, and there an end. (I,iii,63—5) he could flash a knowing smile at Panthino and finish his line: Tomorrow be in readiness to go. Excuse it not, for I am peremptory. (I,iii,70-l) He and Panthino then leave, exchanging a glance, walking smugly off. But Antonio is ”peremptory." Panthino soon returns to tell Proteus that preparations are already underway. So, Antonio is a man of his word and a man of few words, at that. Also, he will spare nothing to achieve his goal. .} ’ . 1’ I”. 113 There is no evidence of Antonio's being other than a good man, so we must assume that is the way he was intend- ed to be. There is no need to alter his speech, walk, or gestures. His main function is as a device to motivate and dispatch Proteus to court. Antonio in The Merchant of Venice The merchant Antonio is in his late twenties or early thirties. So as to associate him with the younger characters in the play, he would not have a beard. His presence and carriage are truly regal. Because of his great wealth, he is magnificently attired. His most individual characteristic is sadness. It is a mystery. He is surrounded by an aura of mystery. This is the intriguing element of his character. He is so far above all the other characters in the play that he is almost divorced from them. The other characters carry on at a frenetic pace, all deeply involved in their own affairs. He is of a different and less ani- lnated presence. He is interwoven throughout the story, and is a stabilizing influence upon the performance in general. In fact, as the play progresses and the rum—rev 114 involvements deepen, Antonio becomes more immersed in his own psychological problem. The projection of this mys- terious sadness is made outright at the play's opening line: In sooth, I know not why I am so sad: (I,i,l) : ‘ Externally, he broods and sighs wearily, but nev- i er sulks. He is very reminiscent of Hamlet and the ; Prince's manner in the early scenes of that tragedy. He is“. maintains a tired face, soulful eyes, and a general ap- Pearance of an almost insurmountable gloom. Antonio's behavior with Bassanio should not be overu-emphasized since the lines establish their close rela1:ionship constantly. This does not mean that Antonio should appear to be patronizing with Bassanio; it means that..Antonio should not be over anxious to give his money away, or fawn over his friend-in-need. He simply ligTrtens his burden in an amiable way. Antonio's moods vary in the play, although they are=2r10t always motivated by the lines or even the situ- aticnn. However, he should appear as being tender, in- different, tired, hearty, determined, irritable and Violent at different times. This is no easy problem in 115 terms of distribution and would become too involved if put to a discussion. It is meant as a device to add dimension to the complexity of Antonio's mood. Antonio is constantly referred to as a kind, gen- F71 In. erous, and honorable man, with oaths such as: i A kinder gentleman treads not the earth (II,viii,35) the good Antonio, the honest Antonio--O that I .L_s: had a title good enough to keep his name company! The dearest friend to me, the kindest man, The best-condition'd and unwearied spirit In doing courtesies, and one in whom The ancient Roman honour more appears Than any that draws breath in Italy. (III,ii,295-99) and many others of a similar nature. The only one who speaks poorly of Antonio is Shylock, and this is quite understandable. Antonio, as he grows deeper in sadness, exhibits more noble characteristics. He progresses in character development throughout the play. In fact, with the possible exception of Portia, he is the only one who develops at all. The others merely progress in their situations until they are resolved, but we learn little 116 of them as persons. Antonio's development is mainly in terms of his concern for his friends and his general aware- ness of everyone but himself. It is his compassion and sensitivity which springs all of the plot lines. He is modest where others are boastful, patiently magnificent where they are angry, and virtuous where they are venge- ful. In short, he is a stoic-—a Brutus. His emotions and thoughts are so obviously cloaked in an absolute qual- ity of virtuousness that he is not of their world. The audience must recognize this as well as Antonio's sense of foreboding. What are the motivations, aside from the religious, for the enmity between Antonio and Shylock? Shylock is a boarder and a miser; Antonio is very generous with his time and his wealth. Antonio is always kind to people and obliging to those who ask his help; Shylock is always sus- picious. Shylock never allows himself to be won over or befriended unless it is for his own welfare; Antonio open- ly offers his assistance and does it without fanfare. Their hatred is mutual. Antonio's wrath against Shylock after the trial serves as a balance to Shylock's hatred and demand for his bond during the trial. They must be 117 treated with equal emphasis, lest we have either no sym- pathy for Shylock or for the defacing of Antonio's image. As for vocal elements, Antonio should never maintain a sing-song, "wee is me" inflection. His countenance should bear the brunt of projecting his nature whenever the lines do not. However, in reference to the fluctua- tion of his moods, the voice should sustain the emotion. This, of course, can only be achieved through private practice and at rehearsals. This is not to say that, in general, his voice will be as energetic as those of the other characters. It should not be effervescent or greatly lyrical or downright sorrowful. It should be firm, masculine, and stable. The main suggestion to avoid is one which could easily be implied—-effeminacy. He is not an effete, phlegmatic, and spoiled little rich boy given to tantrums. Antonio is a handsome, ambitious, virtuous, and magnificently endowed young man. To pre- sent him as being anything other than masculine is rightfully to invite a deluge of criticism, a miscon- ception of the author's intent and snickers from the audience. When Antonio in the play senses sympathy, he l .. 12:15:51 118 stifles it with a cheerful manner so as not to let it af- fect his friends' feelings or the situation. He detests sympathy and avoids it. Antonio shows good taste. has! (in - Antonio in Much Ado About Nothing Antonio in this play is the same age as the one in Two Gentlemen, his late forties or early fifties. He is not changed physically from the standpoint of dimension and noble bearing. He wears a beard and is richly attired. Ursula gives the only identifying characteristics of Antonio: I know you by the waggling of your head (II,i,120) Here's his dry hand up and down (II,i,124) and although these references can be taken literally, they would not coincide with our conception of him. They give evidence of senility and old age. Antonio cannot be older than his brother, Leonato, else Antonio would be the gov— ernor; and, Leonato cannot feasibly be more than fifty- five since his daughter, Hero, is only about twenty. The above quoted remarks are in reference to certain individual characteristics which Antonio is noted for by 119 his associates. The ”waggling head” is an indication of a nervous twitch, and the "dry hand” is in reference to his humour: he is a dry man,--a dry sense of humor or wit, and a sincere person. In this sense the references, as inter- preted, coincide with his nature. The unique characteristic of this Antonio is his great sense of pride and his sincerity. These are mostly in reference to his loyalty to his brother, his pride in his sense of honor, and his vanity. Antonio is respect- ful of his brother's ideas and wishes, carrying them out and dispensing authority. He is also respected by his brother, keeping his passionate nature in check and act- ing as Leonato's chief counsellor. However, he is not a gossip. In the scene (I,ii) where Antonio tells Leonato of the news of Claudio's love for Hero, he is not spread- ing gossip. He is concerned for his niece; and since her father does not know of the circumstances, Antonio tells Leonato. It is part of his duty as chief advisor. Antonio's pride and integrity must always be maintained, lest he become foolish. His tirade against Claudio and Don Pedro (V,i) is not a scene depicting an older man railing at a young man foolishly with false 120 bravado and a shouting voice. This scene is the backbone of our conception of Antonio's character, it shows him in a different light than before. The situation is contrived, but Antonio's behavior is not. He and the governor have been slighted to their faces, and Antonio is beside him- self against this disrespectful and presumptuous young 'man. His anger, pride, and threats are in earnest, as is his bravery. Perhaps the most inclusive statement to make about Antonio's portrayal is that, except for one or two minor details, he is an extension of the Antonio in Two Gentle- men. The special characteristic of the Two Gentlemen Antonio is his strong will, an item which the Much Ado Antonio presents also, but only when forced to assert it. The Much Ado Antonio is distinguished by a proud yet sin- cere nature, an element which the Two Gentlemen Antonio possesses but is not really in a position to present except as a suggestion. The elements are similar but the dis— tinction is made with regard to stress and treatment. Of course, the Two Gentlemen Antonio is not onstage long enough to warrant a better comparison, and when he is onstage, he is in a fairly light mood. The Much Ado J 121 Antonio is onstage longer, in a more involved situation and of a more serious tenor. The point is that the two should be played quite similarly, aside from the individual dis— tinctions already mentioned. The audience will make the distinction between the two men because of the differences Ffiflfi? t in length of role and dramatic situation. : There is no need to change the voice. He is a 7 man of few words and when not motivated, he does not 111”. speak at all. This Antonio should never seem ludicrous or Polonious-like. He is not a gossip, or a doddering old fool, or a pantalone. He is what he is: a proud and well-respected man of high office; one who knows his place and knows how to maintain it; who can appreciate and deliver witticisms; one who can give as well as take. Antonio in Twelfth Night Antonio, in this play, is in his late thirties. The reason for selecting this age is that he must be old enough to be a sea captain and young enough to create a "Big-brother" image towards Sebastian, who, because of his youthful naiveté and twin relationship with a boy- ishly young Viola, is no older than twenty-five. He 122 also wears a beard and is of a noble bearing. However, be- cause of his vocation, he is singularized by a livelier step and a more active manner of gesticulating. His com- plexion is ruddy, and he is dressed in the costume of his calling, but dressed very well. His voice, perhaps, has a gruff quality. As mentioned in the previous chapter all of the Antonios, save only the one in Much Ado, are concerned with the sea in some way. However, the Twelfth Night Antonio is the only one who is of the sea. He is a frank speaking, adventurous living, hard drinking, Re- naissance sea-dog with a devil-may-care attitude. His nature is, in a word, cavalier. It is his unique charac- teristic. This attitude we find underlying his behavior in the play. Antonio's jeopardizing of his own safety to pro- tect Sebastian firmly shows this quality, as do: his intercession on behalf of Viola (mistaken for Sebastian) to fight against Toby Belch and his friends; his giving Sebastian his purse, thus leaving himself without any money; his railing at Viola for not returning the purse upon request, thus bringing attention to himself and 123 causing his capture; and his unshaken dignity in the face of his captor Orsino. Since there is no indication, other than in the lines, to tell us of Sebastian's rescue, his recovery, and his friendship with Antonio, we must assume from the connotation that Antonio is an extremely generous, honor- able, and sensitive man. These inner qualities are, like- wise, exhibited by his behavior as mentioned above. How- ever, Antonio expects this kindness to be reciprocated. When Viola claims that she is ignorant of Antonio's purse, he is shocked into disbelief. Upon recovering his facul- ties, he appears ready to strike out at the mistaken twin but is apprehended before he can do so. His anger is terrible as he is taken away. When he is brought be— fore Orsino (V,i), he is still beside himself though his outward raging has subsided. Upon Sebastian's entrance, Antonio is about to reprimand the young man when he dis- covers the twin identity and becomes amazed. Antonio is not brazen before Orsino. He is rath- er matter-of-fact. He would never allow himself to ap- Pear degraded in the presence of his enemy, especially with a young lady present. He is too much a gallant. Nor does Orsino's tribute to Antonio's seamanship: 124 A bawbling vessel he was captain of, For shallow draught and bulk unprizable, With which such scathful grapple did he make With the most noble bottom of our fleet, That very envy and the tongue of loss Cried fame and honour on him. (V,i,57-62) affect him as flattery or change his manner. Antonio is 1 i1 very brave and relies on his courage. He knows that Or- 1 sino is not a tyrant, but an able ruler; and he respects him. There is a code of honor between them which is main- I." tained amongst high ranking men. Although Antonio does not actively participate in the conclusion of the play, he is aware of his good for- tune. He has restored Sebastian to life, and the young man is about to become Orsino's brother-in-law. This means that he will get off with only a slight reprimand from Orsino and perhaps a small fine, finally making peace with the Duke and participating joyously in the wedding festivities. This is poetic justice, too, for without Antonio's kindness to Sebastian there would be no play. So, he certainly is deserving of mutual bene- fits. In short, he would have a somewhat smug, and rather content, expression. 125 Antonio in The Tempest Antonio, here, is in his early forties. Since DLiranda is fifteen, as indicated by Prospero's lines: Canst thou remember n A time before we came unto this cell? I do not think thou canst, for then thou wast not Out three years old. (I,ii,37-40) Twelve year since, Miranda, twelve year since, Thy father was the Duke of Milan and A prince of power. (I,ii,54-6) ‘m.‘l‘h."fi‘.‘-".:hl. .‘ ”I... ‘1. ‘n u Prospero cannot feasibly be older than his middle or late forties. Antonio must be younger than his brother, else he would have been the rightful Duke of Milan, and we should have no play at all. The Tempest Antonio is not changed, basically, in either his noble bearing or his overall countenance from the other Antonios. However, these are only surface counterfeits to his true nature. It is a part of his deceit. His unique qualities are his greed, ambition, and lack of conscience. As indica— ted in the previous chapter, this Antonio is the oppo— site of the first four. His motives, virtues, and sense of values are contrary to those possessed by the Other Antonios. 126 He immediately conveys this impression by his bragging and by his offensive manner of referring to peo— 53113. Then, too, he has already caused the overthrow of f the change that has come upon him. He is defiant be- :Eore Prospero, but he surrenders. It is debatable as to whether or not there should lee any sympathy attached to Antonio. It depends upon Iindividual interpretation. In the perspective of his jpcssibilities, capabilities, and energy, the sympathy ‘would possibly lie with what he might have been. How- ever, Antonio is no Iago. To sympathize with Antonio is possibly to detract from the justification of Pros- pero's behavior. The lines tell us how magnificent Prospero is, but we never see any of it; his actions are ven9eful, impulsive, and a trifle immature. However, we do See Antonio work; and we can note certain admirable 130 suggestions in his character when applied in a righteous light. Prospero's magic is the only external element that elevates him above the ordinary nobles; otherwise Antonio is, by far, the more practical, more experienced and able man. This character is the exposition of the first four Antonios gone awry. All the characters are based upon the essence of their similarities but presented with varying degrees of emphasis and perspective, according to the dic- tates of the lines, situations, and tenor of the respec- tive plays. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS In the Introduction it was asserted that Shake- speare was a craftsman who tooled his plots and charac- ters along certain preconceived lines, tempering and developing them until they transcended his craft and entered the realm of art. Then it was stated that Shakespeare, sensing the audience's awareness of a character who reappears in different plays, possibly preconceived a notion to make his character evince a certain type of individual. To test this, the charac- ter of Antonio was investigated in five plays: 239 Gentlemen of Verona, The Merchant of Venice, Much Ado About Nething, Twelfth Night, and The Tempest. This study was so structured as to approach the topic from four directions: source materials, individual character analysis, characteristics sim- ilar to all five Antonios, and a discussion of each character in terms of stage portrayal. What have we discovered? 13'1 132 Chapter Two was devoted to the source materials which are believed to have been used by Shakespeare in writing the five plays. From the evidence presented there, we have seen that all five plays were based upon a r sources from foreign countries, and that all five plays ' 1 are classified as comedies. I Chapter Three analyzed each character individually and in context of his play. The discussion of their sim- mewwf ilarities and differences was carried on into Chapter Four, where the characters were treated collectively. In Chapter Four we found that: 1. All the characters are of noble rank and social position. 2. All possess or suggest considerable wealth. 3. All are serious, as opposed to comical, characters. 4. All appear to be noble in bearing and magni- ficent in countenance. 5. All are strong—willed and determined men. 6. All are industrious, enterprising, and ambitious. 7. All are employed as dramatic devices to give rise to the main action of the play. (A possible exception might be The Merchant Antonio because he not only creates the incident, he is deeply involved in it.) 133 These are elements which can be attributed to all five Antonios. From the evidence presented by T. w. Baldwin on the organization of Shakespeare's company, we have seen #1:; 4.. ' L] that Henry Cundall was assigned the part of Antonio in i t The Merchant of Venice, Twelfth Night, and The Tempest. we have assumed that Cundall did not play the two re- l maining Antonios, because they are older men contained L 1.4} in plays which were written when Cundall was still play- ing younger parts. If he were able to transcend the limitations of time, he probably would have played the remaining two Antonios, also. In conclusion, we have seen that the first four Antonios are built along similar lines, and have similar characteristics. However, Antonio in The Tempest serves as a contrast to these four and proves to be their re- verse. This we have seen to be a result of Shakespeare's maturity as a playwright and philosopher, and the dozen years which separate The Tempest from its predecessor in the study of Twelfth Night. Therefore, this last Antonio is the reverse in matters of dramatic representation; he 134 propagates evil, whereas the other Antonios propagate virtue. In the make—up of their emotions, values, and vir— tues, we have seen how the first four Antonios are similar and how, again, the last Antonio is the reverse. To review: 1. The first four Antonios are much respected; the last one is not. 2. They are considerate; he is deceitful. 3. They are virtuous; he is amoral. 4. They are proud; he is defiant. 5. They are earnest; he is sinister. 6. They are loyal; he is perfidious. 7. They are generous; he is avaricious. In Chapter Five, which discussed each character in terms of stage portrayal, we saw the individual qual- ity of each character serving as a backbone to his pre- sentation. Here we witnessed Shakespeare's craft: how he gave five characters the same name, with many simi- larities, but made each appear as a separate character to the audience. We saw the first four Antonios pre— sented as distinct individuals, yet based upon the 135 foundation of their similarities. we also noted the pre- sentation of The Tempest Antonio and how he is diametri- cally opposed to the others in terms of behavior. As to why Shakespeare used the specific name of fund“ Antonio five different times, we can only guess. Since Shakespeare himself played the first Antonio in Two Gentle- men, he may have become enarmored of the character and used him again and again. Generally, when a dramatist has got- L—-"r ten hold of a good thing, it is not unusual for him to texture it in different ways, develop it, and watch it grow. However, Antonio is no Falstaff. The fat knight is supposedly based upon a true personage, whereas Antonio is the name of a character type. In the Introduction mention was made of a red thread which ran through all five Antonios. we have seen that there are, indeed, a considerable number of them. Also, we have witnessed the workmanship of an artist who took a character of a particular mold and shaped him into different images without losing the character's basic foundation or soul in four out of five plays. After a half-century during which scholars have been preoccupied with Shakespeare's text and poetry 136 sometimes to the exclusion or denigration of character and plot, the pendulum is swinging back to the more purely dramatic side of his art. This work was begun in the con— viction that Shakespeare was essentially a poet-craftsman in the theatre, that his imagination worked best when stimulated by a tale or a situation involving a conflict between human beings, and that a full appreciation must relate his imagery, rhythms, and ideas to the dramatic handling of the stories and personages as he re-made them. To trace this in detail was not this author's intention, for to Shakespeare part of a romance by Montemayor or an essay by Barnabe Riche served as a seminal impulse just as an anecdote at a dinner party did to the American novelist. On the whole, Shakespeare kept close to his sources, but his deviations are at least as significant as his borrowings. Without a knowledge of the material available to him neither his debts nor the transcendent scope of his creative energy can be truly assessed. It is hoped that this study has shown that Shakespeare gave the character of Antonio elements of personality which remain constant in all reoccurrences 137 of the character in different plays; that Shakespeare, although treating each Antonio individually and in a different perspective, has used the person of Antonio to evince a certain character type. From this assertion it is further hoped that we can see how Shakespeare tooled his dramatic elements along preconceived lines until they were transported into the realm of art. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Anders, H. R. D. Shakespeare's Books. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1904. 316 pp. Baldwin, Thomas Whitfield. The Organization and Person- 138 nel of the Shakespearean Company. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1927. Bond, Richard Warwick. Early Plays from the Italian. Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1911. Bullough, Geoffrey. Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1958. Vols. I & II. Chambers, E. K. William Shakespeare. Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1930. Vols. 1 & 2. Chute, Marchette. Shakespeare of London. New York: E. P. Dutton Co., Inc., 1949. 397 pp. Clarke, Charles Cowden. Shakespeare-Characters: Chiefly those Subordinate. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1863. Cole, Toby and Helen Krich Chinoy (Eds.L Actors on Acting. New York: Crown Publishers, 1959. Dean, Leonard F. (Ed.). Shakespeare: Modern Essays in Criticism. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1957. Grillo, Ernesto. Shakespeare and Italy. Glasglow Univ. Press: Robert Maclehose & Co., Ltd., 1949, 159 pp. Hazlitt, W. C. (Ed.). Shakespeare's Library. London: Reeves & Turner, 1875. Vols. 1, 3 & 4° 139 Holzknecht,Karl J. The Backgrounds of Shakeepeare's Plays. New York: American Book Company, 1950. Joseph, Bertram. Acting Shakespeare. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1960. Joseph, Bertram. Elizabethan Acting. London: Oxford University Press, 1951. Joseph, Bertram. The Tragic Actor. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1959. Lea, Kathleen Marguerite. Italian Popular Comedy. 2 Vols. Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1934. Lee, Sidney. A Life of William Shakespeare. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1929. Prouty, Charles T. The Sources of Much Ado About Nothing. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950. Schucking, Levin L. Character Problems in Shakespeare's Plays. New York: Peter Smith, 1948. Scott, Mary Augusta. Elizabethan Translations from the Italian. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1916. Stoll, Elmer Edgar. Shakespeare Studies. New York: Frederick Unger Publishing Co., 1960. Traversi, Derek. Shakespeare: The Last Phase. London: Hollis & Carter, 1954. White, Harold Ogden. Plagiarism and Imitation During the English Renaissance. Cambridge: Harvard Uni- versity Press, 1935. White, Richard Grant. Shakespeare's Scholar. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1854. 140 Articles and Periodicals Bartlett, Alice Hunt. "Shakespeare as a Master Psycho- analyst." The Poetny Review (May-June, 1933) London: The Poetry Society, Inc. pp. 183-189. Bennett, Mackie Langham. “Shakespeare's Much Ado and f“f”“fi its Possible Italian Sources." Texas University 3 Studies in English No. 3726, July 8, 1937. No. 17. Austin: University of Texas Press. pp. 52- 74. Campbell, 0. J. "Two Gentlemen of Verona and Italian ; _ Comedy." Studies in Shakespeare, Milton and i__m;; Donne. University of Michigan Publications, Language and Literature, Vol. I. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1925. pp. 47-64. Cardozo, J. L. "The Backgrounds of Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice." English Studies, V. 14. Amsterdam: N. V. Swets & Zeitlinger, 1932. pp. 177-86. Craig, Hardin. "Recent Literature of the English Re- naissance.” Studies in Philology, Vol. 27. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1930. pp. 293-409. Gaw, Allison. "Is Shakespeare's Much Ado a Revised Earlier Play?" PMLA, 50 (1935) pp. 715,738. Gray, Henry David. "The Sources of the Tempest." Modern Language Notes, Vol. XXXV. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1920. pp. 321-330. Gray, Henry David. "Chronology of Shakespeare's Plays." Modern Language Notes, Vol. XLVI. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1931. pp. 147-150. 141 Gorelik, Mordecai. "This Side Idolatry." Educational Theatre Journal, 1949-1951, Vol. 3, Publ. AETA. pp. 187-191. Harmon, Alice. “How Great was Shakespeare's Debt to Montaigne?" PMLA,Vol. LVII. Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Co., 1942. pp. 988-1008. Heywood, Thomas. "An Apology for Actors." Early Treatises on the Stage. London: The Shakespeare Society, 1853. Jessup, Katherine E. "Shakespeare's Comic Lovers." The Shakespeare Association Bulletin. Vol. IV, No. 4. Publ. by SA of A, Inc. Oct. 1929. pp. 104-116. Murphy, Doreen. "Shakespeare's Debt to his Predecessors." The Irish Monthly, Vol. 62. Dublin: Cahell & Co., Ltd., 1934. pp. 496-507, 552-558. Simonini, R. C., Jr. Italian Scholarship in Renaissance England. The University of North Carolina Studies in Comparative Literature. No. 3. Chapel Hill, 1952. Taylor, George Coffin. ”Is Shakespeare's Antonio the 'Weeping Philosopher Heraclitus'?" Modern Philology, Vol. 26. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928. pp. 161-67. U 91H) 1 813-84 ’3 I‘D ‘ J“ I L“ av'w'ér ‘3" r-—“ b 9. was”? {,1 is T,“ “firth" ‘L 1"“ . "43'- , l .- .130" ' * M'CDITIGVWINIHWWIiiWWIIEIWI'IWYIIHIWIWES 3 1293 03046 4832