Critical response to essay on Much Ado About Nothing

It seems obvious that Charlotte Lennox is not a fan of William Shakespeares Much Ado
About Nothing. Her intent is obvious. The basic premise is to (unfavourably) compare Much
Ado About Nothing to its source Lodovico Ariostos Orlando Furioso (1516). It has been
asserted that the Hero/Claudio plot from Much Ado About Nothing was lifted from Ariostos
work. It is no news that, in the Elizabethan theatre age, sampling works of other playwrights
was a norm, and in line with this fact Ms. Lennoxs argument is founded not on the fact that
the plays principal plot is recycled but it is concerns the injudicious liberties that
Shakespeare took with his adaptation. This is in fact the core of Ms. Lennoxs argument.
Everything that is wrong with Much Ado About Nothing stems from the serious changes
Shakespeare made in adapting the story.

Ms. Lennoxs general approach is to juxtapose incidences in Orlando Furioso with similar
actions in Much Ado About Nothing thereby emphasising the inferiority of the latter work.

Shakespeares work generally falls into three categories the comedies, the tragedies and the
histories. Much Ado About Nothing is a comedy. But unlike with the Tragedies and the
Histories the Comedies come under more division. Occasionally they will be divided as
according to when they were written, but they may also be divided thematically. There are
the serious comedies or problem plays The Merchant of Venice , Measure For Measure,
Alls Well That Ends Well. The pastoral (or less commonly the supernatural) comedies As
You Like It, A Midsummer Nights Dream, The Tempest. Much Ado About Nothing is more
difficult to class. Oftentimes it is classed with Twelfth Night as one of the festive comedies,
but sometimes it is classed with The Merry Wives of Windsor one of the comedies with a
heavy prose plot, but it could even be referred to as a problem play. In Shakespeare and
Elizabethan Poetry ( London , 1951) Muriel C. Bradbook positied that Romeo & Juliet was a
comedic tragedy and in contrast The Merchant of Venice was a tragic comedy. Much Ado
About Nothing falls somewhere in between these two extremities. There is nothing ostensibly
tragic about the play in fact the actions of the main characters are, for the most part, quite
superficial and romantic. But there does exist an underlying of something more sinister when
reading between the lines they could even be referred to as inconsistencies in the plot. Why
do Don Pedro and Claudio so readily believe Don Johns assertion? Why is the allegedly
valiant Claudio so crass in his behaviour towards Hero? Why does Don Johns plot to
destroy Claudio damage Hero so acutely? Like any work of literature there will be questions
left unanswered, and five centuries after the occurrences we will not be able to answer.
However Charlotte Lennoxs critique of the play avers her claims for the mass of the
problems in the plot of Much Ado About Nothing.

Shakespear, by changing the Persons, altering some the Circumstances,

and inventing others, has made the whole an improbable Contrivance

The above statement seems fundamentally accurate, but not for the reasons that Ms. Lennox
believes. Of the dozen and more comedies that Shakespeare penned in his lifetime few if
any- can be described as realistic, probable or possiblenot the magic boxes of The
Merchant of Venice, the cross-dressing heroines of As You Like It and Twelfth Night or the
acerbic vixens of The Comedy of Errors and The Taming of the Shrew or the mysticism in
Perciles or The Winters Tale. It does not seem that Shakespeares intent in comedy was ever
to be wholly realistic. The absurdity of Much Ado About Nothing is must certainly be
intended.

Don John Claudio only is the Object of Don Johns Hatred, yet
the chief Force of the intended Injury is to fall on Her and Leonato
her Father, towards whom he has no Malice These Absurdities
have their Rise from the injudicious change if the Characters

This is an important point, and is actually a major force in Ms. Lennoxs armour. Is Don John
the most reckless of Shakespeares villains? Or is he the least intelligent? Lennoxs grievance
with Shakespeare as aforementioned stems from the deviations from the plot, and obviously
this can be attributed to Shakespeare wanting to breathe some originality into his adaptation;
but the method through which Don John sets about to ruin Claudio is most ambiguous and
rather ephemeral? As mentioned in the review in the original the Don John character was a
jilted lover of the lady. Thus his plot for revenge stemmed not only from a hatred of the new
lover, but from an act of jealousy. Has Shakespeare adapted this bit from the original it would
have made Don Johns actions more organized.

Certainly, in Don Johns actual scheme Claudio loses the woman who may be the great love
of his life but the loss or the pain he feels is minimal and almost insignificant compared
to the abject humiliation that Hero (and by extension) Leonato experience. Don John is
obviously not an unintelligent man; doesnt he realise that he is hardly doing Claudio any
harm by his purported plan? Is this is a mistake on Shakespeares part? An oversight,
perhaps? Was it intended? And if so why? Identifying this is a strength is Ms. Lennoxs
argument. It shows that she has perused both the original text (Orlando Furioso) and the
adaptation (Much Ado About Nothing) and her assertions are remarkably astute.

Borachio tells Don John, that he is highly favoured by Margaret, Heros waiting Woman; that he will
persuade her to dress in her Ladys Cloaths, assume her Name, and talk to him out of her Chamber-
window, all which Don Pedro and Claudio being Witnesses of, would effectually convince them that
Hero was dishonoured.

But Borachio does not acquaint Don John, and through him the Audience, what Colour he will give to
this strange Request, in order to induce Margaret to grant it: Margaret is all along represented as
faithful to her Mistress: it is not likely she would engage in a Plot that seemed to have Tendency to ruin
Heros reputation, unless she had been imposed on by some very plausible Pretences; what those
Pretences were we are left to guess, which is indeed so difficult to do, that we must reasonably suppose
the Poet himself was as much at a Loss here as his Readers, and equally incapable of solving the
difficulty he had raised.

This is another great strength in Ms. Lennoxs argument. Aside from being a pawn in Don
Johns plan, what is the dramatic significance of the character Margaret? The reviewer does
not make any reference to an equivalent of her character in her argument, but this does not
cause her formidable arguments to lose force. Historically Shakespeares plays the
comedies particularly have the heroine having a particularly strong ally either in the form
of a sister, cousin or sometimes a maid. In As You Like It Rosalind has Cecelia (cousin),
Othellos Desdemona has Emelia and The Merchant of Venices Portia has Nerissa (ladies in
waiting). But in Much Ado About Nothing Hero already has a willing and able ally in her
cousin Beatrice, Margarets position as the prospective ally to the heroine of the play has
already been pre-empted. Margarets role in the fall of Hero is certainly acute, but what is
her motive? Obviously Hero trusts Margaret, since she is involved in the scheme of Beatrice
and Benedick but Heros trusting of Margaret is not exactly noteworthy. It is a given of that
era for Royals to entrust their servants with grave secrets. Margaret is a servant and there is
no reason for Hero to NOT be trusting of her. And Heros character is painted as one who is
meek and trusting, of course she would be trusting of Margaret. Isnt she the same to
everyone? One could assume two plausible reasons for Margarets deception of Hero. Either,
she feels untowardly towards her Mistress or is a simpleton. The text gives no indication of
either. Margarets general conversation with Hero, Ursula &etc would have us believe that
she is at least average minded. Her humorous banter with Hero regarding wedding clothes in
Act III Scene IV (Lines 10-40) give promise to her wit tactless as it may be. So we are left
to assume that her actions forebode some sort of ill-will she bears towards Hero. But there
isnt any proof of this. The relationship between Hero and her ladies-in-waiting seems
exceptionally good. In fact there is a severe dissimilarity between the Margaret that we are
privy to on the page and the Margaret that is referred to off the page. Unless we had proof we
would have assumed that this was just another one of Borachios (many) lies. Certainly
Margaret is in love with him, but since when has then been a motive for lies and deception.
There isnt even any indication that their relationship is tangible or consummated. In the end
we are forced to agree with Charlotte Lennox that Shakespeare did not have any substantial
reason for Margarets part in the machinations of Don John, other than the fact that it was
effective to the main plot. And in retrospect, would it have been so difficult to accumulate a
few lines to give some depth to Margarets character?

That Borachio should be the suspected Gallant of Hero, is a Circumstance also highly improbable.
Borachio, a mean Dependant on a Man whose Vices had made him the object of Universal Hatred and
Contempt, a stranger almost in Messina , and, as well on Account of the Meanness of his Situation, as
the Profligacy of his Manners, excluded from any Acquaintance with a Lady of Heros Quality.

Why Borachio? That is another important question that the reader should ask themselves. Ms.
Lennoxs observances may be a bit harsh. a man whose vices had made him the object of
Universal Hatred is surely an exaggeration. But it is nonetheless not grossly incorrect.
Wouldnt Don John himself the bastard that he is been a more worthy candidate to woo
Hero? Bastard or not, he is the Princes brother which at least makes him a seeming
contender for a woman of Heros stature. But then again, isnt Ms. Lennox being too callous.
The heart wants what the heart wants and Borachio the friend would most definitely be
different from Borachio the lover.

Yet how easily does Don Pedro the Friend, and Claudio the Lover of the Lady, swallow this gross
Scandal, that must even derive Improbability from the Person who utters it; for he is neither an honest
Man nor a Friend of Claudio, who is thus solicitous to prevent his dishonouring himself by marrying a
bad Woman, but a Wretch noted for his Propensity to all kinds of Mischief and Villainy, an inveterate
Hater of Claudio, and but a little while before at open Enmity with Don Pedro his Brother. Surely these
Circumstance were sufficient to make the Prince and Claudio doubt the Truth of this Story, which the
Character of the Teller considered, as well as the Improbability of the Facts, seemed much more likely
to be contrived to produce Mischief than prevent it

This portion of the review expresses an inconsistency that seems to be the most outrageous in
the play Don Pedro and Claudios reaction to this gross scandal from Don John. Don John
was just recently involved in some form of uprising against Don Pedro an uprising from
which Claudio played a role in thwarting. Is Don Pedro so credulous that he so readily
believes Don Johns claim. Don Pedro, who seems to be someone quite shrewd, should have
been on the offensive immediately when Don John approached. Brother or not there is not
much love lost between them. Its obvious that Shakespeare intends to show that The Prince
and Claudio who were just recently duping Benedick are now being duped themselves, but it
is really quite ridiculous.
Margaret having done her Part towards defaming hr Mistress without knowing any Thing of the Matter,
through her Discourse with Borachio was calculated to raise the injurious Suspicions, assists her next
Morning to dress for the Wedding, attends her to the Church, hears the designed Bridegroom refuse her
hand, proclaim her a Wanton, and urge her last Nights loose Discourse with Borachio from the
Chamber Window as a Proof: Yet all the while she appears wholly insensible of what had happened,
neither concerned for her Mistress, whom she had ruined without Design, nor anxious for her own
Safety, that seemed to depend upon a candid Confession; for it was not likely her Treachery could be
long concealed. Thus supernaturally (if what is out of Nature may be called above it) is the Plot
brought to Perfection, nor is the unravelling of it less happily imagined

We have already been confused at what exactly were the reasons for Margarets part in Don
Johns scheme. But now the action has moved to the actually climax the wedding in fact
even before that. The prior night Margaret has stood at the window in Mistress clothes. As
mentioned before we cannot accuse Margaret of being a simpleton? So she must be aware of
the ramifications of her actions. Yet she does it. She helps Hero to the church the next
morning and listens and Claudio has his with her. Why doesnt Margaret speak out? And not
even that Shakespeare is notorious for his short soliloquy like lines why not have
Margaret utter some line of penance? It is as if Margaret does not realise what Claudio speaks
of. Did Shakespeare forgotten about her involvement in the greater scheme of things?

Shakespear has deviated from the Original, as much in the drawing his characters, as the Disposition of
his plan. Nothing can be more different than the Sentiments and Behaviour of Ariodant [in Orlando
Furioso] and Claudio, in Circumstances nearly alike. Both are represented as passionate Lovers, happy
in the Possession of their Mistresses Affections, yet prevailed upon to think them false through the
Treachery of Villain; but Ariodant yields only to the strongest Conviction, Claudio to the grossest
Artifice.

There is another incosistency in characterisation present in Much Ado About Nothing that of
the Hero Claudio. But Ms. Lennox seems a bit biased here when she says that Claudio
yields to the grossest artifice . The issue with Claudio is not that he yields to Don
Johns lie, but the problem is how he reacts.

Ariodants Grief, Rage and Jealousy, terminate in a fixed Despair; which prompts him to lay violent
Hands on his own life. Claudio is actuated by a Desire of Revenge, and that of the meanest Sort, for he
suffers the supposed Gallant to escape and only mediates the Ruin of the Lady.

Claudio yields to the grossest artifice. The issue with Claudio is not that he yields to Don
Johns lie, but the problem is how he reacts after he does yield and this one of the major
issues with Claudios behaviour. Early on we have been inclined to believe that Claudio has a
jealous nature but his reaction to Heros alleged deception is not at all gentlemanly and the
fact that he is in cohorts is quite astounding. Thus a key question is raised. How can Claudio
who claims to love Hero so much deception or not act so despicably? Is Claudio really an
accurate illustration for love? Early in the play his mercenary inclinations are obvious when
he ensures that Hero has no siblings with which he would have to share his prospective
wealth. Is Claudio the lover really hurt by Heros act of betrayal? Or is Claudio the
soldier offended that any woman would dupe him? Its startling that this entire deception
plot of Much Ado About Nothing bears close resemblance to the deception in Othello. Of
course Much Ado About Nothing eventually ends well for all which is the only thing that
mitigates the heretics of Claudio.

Ariodant fights with his own Brother, to preserve the Life of her who had injured him: Claudio without
any necessity, exposes his Mistress publickly in Church, brings Ruin and Contempt on her, and
everlasting Shame and Affliction on her poor Father, to whom he had been obliged, for an hospitable
Reception, and an intended Benefit.

Claudio is mean, selfish, ungenerous and cruel: Qualities, that are seldom found in the Heroe and the
Lover, and he is represented as both.

Ariodant is always consistent with his Character, too brave, to be actuated by a mean desire of
Revenge, too much in love, to be guided by Reason; hence arise the several Extravagancies he is guilty
of, but in all, the Manners of the Soldier and Lover are inviolably preserved.

Claudios public exposure of Hero is indeed unnecessary and is another example of his
meanness and thirst for revenge. Ms. Lennox is capricious in suggesting that Claudio should
have targeted Borachio however. It is after all Hero and not Borachio who has deceived him.
Still, Claudio should be culpable for his actions. He may not have killed his woman like
Othello, but at least Othello did not publicly shame Desdemona and in the Medieval setting
of the play wouldnt the shame and scandal of what happened to Hero left unfixed have
been tantamount to death?

Still as accurate as some of the points raised in the critique are Ms. Lennox seems
fundamentally biased against Shakespeare and the play. Certainly, there are some
disconcerting discrepancies in Much Ado About Nothing but it is only upon a keen perusal
that they become disconcerting and they do not deduct from the overall delight of the play.
However, in claiming that Much Ado About Nothing is Shakespeares greatest achievement in
festive comedy is not a legitimate argument for as enjoyable as the play is, it is not
Shakespeare at his best.