This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Elizabethan theatreWikipedia:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreTemplate:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreElizabethan theatre articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Well, I guess I prefer it with four capitals, which is what it has on the cover of these books:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5]. The Arden and New Penguin Shakespeare both use all caps, which does not help us, although you can see capitalisation hinted at on the NPS cover
[6]. My vote is to keep it here, I think.
AndyJones17:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)reply
The article states it as a comedy. Obviously, I don't think it makes a big difference, but I thought I worth mentioning. I think most sources list it as a comedy, though.
AtmanDave02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Nothing/Noting
I remember hearing somewhere that when the play first came out, its title would've been pronounced "Much Ado About Noting." This of course would give it a double meaning, and the whole "noting motif" is referenced several times in the play, such as
"Claudio. Benedick, didst thou note the daughter of signior Leonato?
Benedick. I noted her not, but I lookt on her"
To me, this would seem an interesting bit of trivia to put up.
Yes, I've heard that point. Also that nothing = "no thing" was a recognised pun on the female genitals in Shakespeare's time, which would be an even more interesting piece of trivia to put up. (cf Hamlet to Ophelia: "That's a fair thought to lie between maid's legs ... nothing.") This page could have a whole section on its title. maybe I'll do that one day.
AndyJones17:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)reply
But is there any evidence for this? I don't believe there was any period in the history of English when nothing was pronounced the same as nothing.
AJD04:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Richard Grant White observed that ‘Noting’ and ‘Nothing’ sound much the same in Elizabethan English; Mr. White’s conclusion came in the fact that noting implies watching. - Mr William Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories, Tragedies, and poems, ed. R.D. White, 2nd edition, Boston mass. 1st volume
rinner_3333
The previous version of the sypnosis contains so many errors that I have reverted to an earlier version. Please do not presume anything not in the play.
Errors include:
1) Don Pedro was not involved in a war with his brother "who attempted to usurp his throne"
2) There is no indication Claudio and Hero are acquainted before the war
3) Don John hence was not "bitter over his recent defeat"
Mandel10:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)reply
1) Act I scene 3, Conrad to Don John: "You have of late stood out against your brother, and he hath taken you newly into his grace."
2) Act I scene 1, Claudio to Don Pedro: "When you went onward on this ended action, I looked upon her with a soldier's eye."
1) "Standing out against your brother" does not necessarily mean rebelling against him militarily. Even if Don John did (a huge assumption), this need not be the same compaign.
2) Even if this line means they were acquainted before, it merely means Claudio was not interested in Hero until now (he had looked upon her with an austere "soldier's" eye and not anything else) Later Claudio convinces himself it was otherwise, but whether that is the truth or what Claudio "assumes" is debatable. ("Appearance" and "truth" is a major theme of this play, no?)
1) Some assumptions just make sense. This could be argued, but most readings seem to support that the recent battle was against Don John. See (3).
2) The full line is "I looked upon her with a soldier's eye,/That liked, but had a rougher task in hand / Than to drive liking to the name of love."
3) Don John sounds pretty bitter to me: "This may prove food to / my displeasure. That young start-up hath all the glory of my / overthrow. If I can cross him any way I bless myself every way." (1.3.51-53)
IrisWings10:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)reply
This assumption does not make sense. One would not believe Don John if he has the temerity to rebel against his brother militarily, at least not so soon. Would you trust a defeated foe in battle?
Mandel06:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I? No. But blame Shakespeare, because it's in there. :P ("Stood out," in the instance above, means "rebelled" according to the annotations in my script.)
If you have a specific suggestion to improve this article, please just come out and say it. Pointing out what's wrong without offering a solution isn't very helpful (to me, at least). If you would care to make a constructive suggestion, I'm sure anyone would be more than happy to listen. ^_^
IrisWings07:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't really understand what you are getting at. My solution is to change it, but before I do I feel it is basic courtesy to show and argue out why I am changing it here, in the talk page. This is the way Wikipedia works. Your self-assumption of the text is leading you nowhere. We all know 'stood out' here means to 'stand up against' and in some ways, 'rebel'. But how would you know it was "militarily", and that it was the same compaign? The New Cambridge edition suggests it might but concedes "it is not very clear"; Oxford Shakespeare doesn't even annotate the line. This line did state that Don John stood against his brother for something, for which he was forgiven, but did not indicate what the offense is.
Mandel09:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)reply
If you want to change it, why not do so yourself? It doesn't seem like you're very willing to listen to any evidence I give, no matter how compelling.
IrisWings19:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)reply
OK, i see, probably the NCS editor is doing a bad job. I apologize.
I'm hoping that I or someone else will soon have the opportunity to rewrite this section anyway, as it's mostly in-universe context. As it stands, it has too much information about the characters, which can just as well remain in the Character section, and it is just restatement of the scene breakdown anyway. (Which, to be fair, is my fault.)
I plan to rewrite the synopsis to include more discussions ABOUT the plot rather than just recounting it unless someone else does so first. I hope everyone can be sure I won't assume facts not in the play. :P
IrisWings22:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)reply
IrisWings, writing about the plot should be in another section. The synopsis should remain a recounting of the plot, but it should be accurate, not overly long and devoid of self-assumptions.
To clarify, when I said writing "about" the plot, I simply meant to make it less in-universe, which I or someone else needs to do. When I wrote the original draft, I was brand-new and didn't realize that a simple summary would not suffice.
IrisWings10:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)reply
The character section is also very POV. Benedick, a
courtier? Says who? There is no indication he was ever involved in any court affairs, as the play stands he was merely a soldier. "Beatrice enjoys taunting men"? Why not say she enjoys taunting people? Claudio "the right-hand man of Don Pedro"? Hero "compassionate"? Don Pedro "talkative"?
Mandel06:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Benedick as courtier is all from my source. I'm not conversant with the Book of the Courtier, but Stephen Greenblatt is. Surely we may defer to expert analysts?
When in the work does Beatrice taunt any women? She behaves playfully with her cousin, and is cross with Margaret, but she taunts Benedick and Don Pedro. The play is, in part, about Beatrice's misandry and Benedick's misogyny, as mild as their feelings may actually be.
Leonato states at 1.1.8-9, "I find here that Don Pedro hath bestowed much honour on a young Florentine called Claudio." The messenger goes on to describe Claudio's battle prowess and Don Pedro's reward. Throughout the play, Don John is continually hanging around Claudio and offering to do him favors. Perhaps "right-hand man" is imprecise, but I associate him with Cassio from Othello.
I call Hero compassionate because many a woman would be highly unwilling to forgive and marry the man who had publicly shamed her.
I suppose Don Pedro isn't as talkative as Benedick, but he certainly does take control in social situations. It also makes sense to contrast him with Don John, who is "not of many words." (1.1.127)
Please do not assume that I did not a) read and b) research this work. I cited my sources, which support my assertions. This article is about a work of literature, not a scientific fact. In order to be written about, literature must be interpreted, which is by necessity a subjective process. I attempted to write in generalities with which the bulk of readers would agree.
I would like to see this article moved up to A status soon, and arguing certainly won't accomplish that. However, I have done my best to write accurately and cautiously, and to support my work. I feel that your comments to me are somewhat condescending, and I would like to communicate in a more productive manner.
IrisWings10:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I am not condescending towards anyone, simply because I have no idea who wrote what, but some of the things in this article simply does not tally with what the text offers. Please don't take this personally - all my comments are directed at the state of the article, not at the writer(s), but at Wikipedia one must listen to comments even if they are criticisms.
IrisWings, assumption is a very dangerous game. It defies
NPOV and invites controversy. Benedick is not a
courtier (there is no evidence he holds any post in court), Claudio is not the "right-hand man" of Don Pedro (he is merely a soldier who has distinguished himself in the last compaign). The definition of "compassionate" is one who is "sympathetic towards others". Also, Don Pedro being talkative is just a personal opinion. This being a play, obviously you expect characters to speak a little? Would you say Hamlet is a talkative character?
Mandel06:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)reply
My understanding of the NPOV rule isn't that it intends us to source every statement. We are not idiots; we can assume that common knowledge and common interpretations will be helpful to the readers of articles. Isn't that the point--to provide a useful background for readers? Readers aren't idiots, either; they understand that some generalization is necessary.
I hold with my source, which is evidence enough for me. Aren't professional sources what we're supposed to use for support?
By the way, I found the line that says Claudio is Don Pedro's "right hand." It's at 1.3.39-40.
Yes, I own a dictionary. ;) If you feel the bulk of readers would disagree with "compassionate," please choose a more appropriate descriptor for Hero.
The source we should use is the Shakespearean text, not
Stephen Greenblatt. Greenblatt is not the play's author, he could only offer his own POV interpretation of the play. Greenblatt sees Benedick as a courtier, but how much of it is valid is debatable.
Ah, but whenever I do offer the text as evidence, you either refuse to answer, or you make a circular argument about it.
Stephen Greenblatt is an expert. Shakespeare is dead, so it's not like we can ask him what he meant. All we have is the text and the research of experts. I can't believe that you're trying to refute my source now...
And, no offense, but it doesn't really seem like you're that familiar with the text yourself. You've made a lot of assertions on this page that I and others have directly refuted with evidence from the text.
You mean 3.1.95-97. Yes, Iriswings, for a play so much involved in "noting", in the mistrust of words, "clothing" and outward appearances, you have to choose this line to illustrate the fact!
Look at the dramatic context of the scene and tell me if what Hero and Ursula says can be taken at face value. Hero says Claudio is the "foremost man" in Italy; would you trust this descriptor or what we learn from the play itself, that he is merely a person easily deceived by appearance?
If you have been involved in any matchmaking, you should know the superlatives there can never be trusted. Hero and Ursula are "marketing" Benedick, and hence I would never think Benedick is so "hot" in Italy.
Mandel09:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I probably could have found some other examples, but I didn't really feel the need to beat a dead horse.
The remainder of the dramatic context is that Benedick is a well-known lady-killer, and that he and Beatrice previously had some sort of relationship.
Now you're not only refusing my interpretation and an expert's, you're refusing the text itself.
I better say my piece and let you get on with this.
"I and the others"--oh no, it's only you.
I don't pretend to be an expert on S, but what we both have are S's texts. Maybe it's all do to my prof's bad teaching. "don't quote from another author to substantiate your own argument! Quote from the original author himself! You have a brain--Christ's sake, think!" Whatever. Happy editing.
Mandel22:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Is this section necessary? Is it just too much? If the synopsis section were not a simple summary, but was more out-of-universe, would it be more or less neccessary? Could it be re-written to be more concise?
I still believe this is the best format for theatrical (as opposed to literary) study of the play, but what does everyone else think?
IrisWings10:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Images
The new image of Beatrice is lovely; however, I'm concerned that it doesn't represent THE Beatrice from Much Ado. I'm also uncertain if Beatrice is even the title of this painting, since I could only find it called Portrait of a Woman[7].
It's from
Shakespeare Illustrated. (In general, if you click on an image to enlarge it, information about the source should be there.) It doesn't really match my mental image of Beatrice, but that's who it was created to be.
Oh, I see. I had checked that site before and didn't see it, so it must have been added recently. Thanks for clarifying. ^_^
Also, I found some illustrations on this site,
[8] but I don't quite understand when it's fair to use an image, and the policy page kind of scared me off.
IrisWings22:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)reply
It's too bad we don't have information on the artist for those engravings -- chances are good that he or she died more than 70 years ago, in which case the images would be public domain worldwide. Anything published in the 19th century anywhere in the world is public domain in the U.S., though, so the images can definitely be uploaded with that license tag. (On the Licensing: dropdown when you upload an image, the option is listed as "First published in the U.S. before 1923," but it actually includes this case as well.) —Celithemis22:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)reply
What does this line mean?
I've often watched and enjoyed the K. Branagh version of Much Ado About Nothing movie. What does this line mean?
It keeps me on the windy side of care.
It's from a conversation between Beatrice and the Prince. He starts, "In faith my lady you have a merry heart." She replies, "Yes, my lord I thank it, poor fool. It keeps me on the windy side of care."
Does it mean that she is light hearted or doesn't care about anything?
It means it keeps her free of care; that is, of trouble or worry. To be on the windy side means to be on the side from which the wind blows rather than the side the wind blows to, in other words, to be out of the wind, the wind in this case being care.
The allusion is to sailing: when you are on the windy side of, say, a rocky island, you can steer the ship since the wind is blowing it along and thus you have control over it. On the lee side, there is no wind so the ship drifts with the currents and you have no control over it. In the latter case it is much more likely that the ship will end up on the rocks. Hence it's much better to be on the windy side of care than on the lee side. --
Derek Ross |
Talk06:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
An old sense of 'windy' is 'wary' or 'cautious' or even 'nervous,' ready to make a run for it. To be on the windy side of care is to be more than usually careful. However, I cannot find this meaning in a modern dictionary and am repeating an expression used by my grandmother from 19th century Yorkshire. So - "she's windy" - does not mean that she talks a lot. She is circumspect, or suspicious and timid, and keeps herself safe. A related expression is 'best to be on the safe side.' For example, I'm windy about opening email attachments from unknown senders; best to be on the safe side and delete them.
--
Steve (
talk)
21:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Characters
I've said this on other pages, too, and I hate to sound like a nag, but at some point each of the characters (at least the main ones, anyway) from Much Ado will all need their own individual pages. So anyone willing to take it on would be doing a great service. --
BeastKing8907:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Would the person from a dynamic IP beginning 85.178 please come to this talk page to explain why they keep removing the "Characters" section. It's always done without edit summary. An undiscussed blanking of an entire section is likely to be reverted, so please say here why you think that section shouldn't be in the article. Thanks.
Stratford490 (
talk)
18:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I've reverted the characters section to a very old, essentially stub version. The material I took out was added by 86.132.150.11 03:33 21 Feb 2008
[9], and appears to have been copied directly from SparkNotes
[10]. Perhaps the anon who was blanking the section saw the copyvio too.
Kurt (
talk)
07:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Popular phrase
Shouldnt there be a separate article for the phrase? Has it become popular already? Or is it an idiom? I saw the phrase somewhere but wasnt sure what it meant. I found the answer somewhere deep in this article.
kawaputratorque10:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)reply
(Ctrl-click)">
This series of characters has recently appeared in every line of a list at "Adaptations" I tried it, but nothing happened. This untidy addition has turned up in quite a few articles recently; what's it about, please? --
Old Moonraker (
talk)
06:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Looks like it was the last edit by Smatprt that introduced it along with an unrelated change; which probably means either that he's using some kind of edit-assist script, or that he's using the Rich Text Editor / WYSIWYG editing mode and there's a bug in whichever he's using that introduces these. It could of course be browser weirdness, but I can't really see how that'd happen. Smatprt? Have you added any scripts recently? Or are using one that might have been updated recently? --
Xover (
talk)
07:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I've tried reverting and then re-making Smatprt's edit. I think that's fixed the immediate problem. It would still be useful to know what's going wrong, though.
AndyJones (
talk)
09:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I use
wikEd, but have been for quite a while, and have made to changes to my preferences in ages. There must be a bug somewhere? What should I do?
Smatprt (
talk)
14:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I went to the wikEd help page to report the bug and it had already been reported. The creator reverted to the older version while he tries to fix the problem. I reloaded the older version and did a test edit, with no click-click appearing, so the issue should be resolved.
Smatprt (
talk)
15:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The Motifs Section
The motifs section is almost an exact copy of that on No Fear Shakespeare. Considering NFS is written by professionals. I would say that someone copied it, yet there is no mention of it in the References? Am I mistaken? Feel free to correct me...
Wllm t (
talk)
02:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Can you be more specific? I checked some of passages from the
online version but they seem quite different from the same topics here. I couldn't find it at all in the print version (courtesy of Google Books: I don't own this). --
Old Moonraker (
talk)
07:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Need a disambiguation page
With several notable adaptations of this play, each having their own Wikipedia article, this article really needs a disambiguation page. I don't know how to create one, so can someone else create this? (See
Hamlet for an example of a similar article with a disambiguation page) -
Orayzio (
talk)
21:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)reply
The play is set in the Sicilian city of
Messina, now a part of Italy. It was under Spanish rule at the time, but I think saying that is set in Spain will confuse readers. People wondering where Messina will find out easily enough.
Sjakkalle(Check!)08:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Primogeniture
An understanding of English
primogeniture is necessary for a modern audience to understand Much Ado in the way that audiences of
Shakespeare's era understood it. An understanding of the pitiless requirements of
primogeniture adds understanding and deepens the emotional impact at each step and every aspect of the plot.
Primogeniture -- the English law that the husbands lands would go at this death to his bride's oldest son (but not his jewels or other wealth) -- underlies the story lines of English and European stage and literature during the renaissance and before. Marriage was a legal contract between families, negotiated by lawyers, under which the family of the bride's expectancy that one of their future kinsmen would be one day seized of the husband's lands was compensated by the payment of a large dowry in an amount commensurate to the expected value of the future interest. The resulting interest in the bride's eldest son was a valuable and indefeasible interest that could not be changed even if the husband later attempted by writing a will to disinherit the bride's eldest son.
The role of
primogeniture is central in framing the action and plot in Much Ado, as it is in many of Shakespeare's plays. The effects of
primogeniture are in part explicit -- a bride should be wise, fair, and true -- true, and a maiden at marriage so that her eldest son will be the son of the groom. A husband wears horns if cuckolded, which meant that another man's son could inherit the husband's lands due to the unchaste habits of his wife. And it is in important part implicit. An imputation of lack of chastity is central to the plot. A woman accused of unchastity was damaged goods, none could take her as bride without facing later innuendo or perhaps the reality of a bastard inheriting his lands. Her father might wish her dead if she were found to have squandered her marriageability by engaging in premarital sex.
The key malefactor in Much Ado is the character of John, the
bastard brother of the prince.
Bastardy law provided a necessary exception to the doctrine that the oldest son of the groom would inherit. Only the oldest legit, or lawful son, i.e., the son of the marriage, following the payment of the dowry, would inherit the groom's lands. Bastard sons of the husband, particularly if older than the eldest son of the bride, were viewed as potential rival claimants to the lands of the husband, and bitterly resented and reviled as a result by the family of the bride. This antipathy is central to much of Renaissance and medieval law and literature, and seen again here.
I have just modified 2 external links on
Much Ado About Nothing. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.