The Tempest and New Comedy Author(S): Lester E

George Washington University

The Tempest and New Comedy Author(s): Lester E. Barber Source: Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Summer, 1970), pp. 207-211 Published by: Folger Shakespeare Library in association with George Washington University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2868697 . Accessed: 11/01/2014 12:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Folger Shakespeare Library and George Washington University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Shakespeare Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.140.1.131 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:23:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Tempest and New Comedy

LESTER E. BARBER

N an article published in I955,1 Professor Bernard Knox sug- gests that the design of The Tempest is founded on certain of the stock patterns of Greek and Latin New Comedy. He says: "Below the strange and brilliant surface composed of medieval magic and Renaissance travel-tales, the initial situation, the nature and relationships of most of the characters, the development of the action, and its final solution are all conjugations of the basic paradigms of classical comedy." Mr. Knox argues forcefully, but one or two of his assumptions about the tradition of classical comedy are open to question, and he tends, I believe, to oversimplify the situations of Shakespeare's play. Mr. Knox's suggestion seems essentially sound. His insights certainly estab- lish a relationship between The Tempest and New Comedy. He aptly points out, for example, that a phrase which R. A. Brower uses in The Fields of Light to describe one component of The Tempest, the "slavery-freedomcontinuity", applies to New Comedy as well as to Shakespeare. Brower's point is that in The Tempest nearly every nominally free character is in some sense enslaved for a time whereas the real slave, Caliban, fancies himself free. In New Comedy one also finds slaves acting as if they were free and free men temporarily enslaved. And, as The Tempest ends with a restoration of all men to their proper natures (on a complex level), so are the slaves and masters of an ancient comedy returned finally to their right spheres. Mr. Knox points out that the relationship of Prospero and Ariel is reminiscent of that of master and intriguing slave in Plautus and Terence. Ariel's first speech to Prospero is "comparable to many a hyperbolic declaration of availability made by Roman comic slaves." And it is also true, as Mr. Knox makes clear, that Caliban and Gripus, a slave in Plautus' play, the Rudens, share several characteristics,chiefly sullenness and dissatisfaction. Mr. Knox does not mention some other elements which the Rudens and The Tempest have in common. For example, each play contains a figure with supernatural powers. With an eye to restoring the proper order of things, the magician Prospero (by means of Ariel) and the god Arcturus each raises a storm at sea, providentially sending certain shipwrecked victims to their punishment or release from bondage. There is also a parallel between the settings of the two plays. A rural scene is definitely unusual in New Comedy (one exception is the Dyskolos of Menander), and an enchanted island is a new arena for Shakespeare's action. It is true that in The Winter's Tale Shakespeare uses a remote setting, the seacoast of Bohemia, on which to pre-

1 "The Tempest and the Ancient Comic Tradition", Virginia Quarterly Review, 3I (Winter, 1955), 73-89. Reprinted in English Stage Comedy, ed. W. K. Wimsatt, Jr., English Institute Essays (New York, 1955), pp. 52-73.

This content downloaded from 137.140.1.131 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:23:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 208 SHAKESPEAREQUARTERLY sent the abandoning of Perdita and the destruction of Antigonus and his ship. These events are marvelous in a way, but Bohemia is not uncharted like the island in The Tempest, nor a place far from the courts of ordinary men. It is fair to say, I think, that Plautus in the Rudens and Shakespearein The Tempest were trying something new, aiming at unusual effects, and the settings them- selves suggest this. It is my belief that none of these parallels between the Rudens and The Tempest are more than superficial. There are too many differences in tone, in character relationships, and in action for the connection between the two plays to be any more basic. It is true that Mr. Knox never says that New Comedy is a direct source of The Tempest, but several times he implies that this is so: ". . . in other ways it [The Tempest] is the most rigidly traditional of all Shakespeare's comedies-with one exception. The exception is The Comedy of Errors, which is, however, apprentice-work, a typical Renaissance remanie- ment of a Plautine original." "After the long expository scene between Prospero and Miranda (itself a typical Plautine delayed prologue)... "All that remains is to free the clever slave . . . and the play, except for a version of the conventional Plautine request for applause, is over, the traditional paradigm complete." These passages suggest that Shakespeare made deliberate use of elements of Latin comedy, but there is not, I think, sufficient justification for such a view. In fact, all the similarities between The Tempest and New Comedy which Mr. Knox outlines seem to me to be only echoes. There are enough of them and they are sufficiently pronounced to warrant the use of the word "analogue".They do not warrant more. In some of his arguments Mr. Knox accepts certain long-standing assumptions about the nature of New Comedy. I believe that two of these assumptions, the postulation of two particular slave types, and the emphasis on freedom as a goal of the comic slave, are not so well based as they might be and that a reexamination of these assumptions may help clarify the relationship of The Tempest to New Comedy. Mr. Knox says that Ariel and Caliban are, respectively, the clever and the disgruntled slaves of Roman comedy ("Prospero is master . . . and Ariel and Caliban are slaves"; "He (Caliban) is the surly, cursing slave of the old tradition"), and he goes on to differentiate the two varieties of slave in the old tradition. A typical paradigm is the plot in which a clever slave, by intelligent initiative and intrigue (often directed against his less intelligent fellow- slaves) solves his master'sproblem (which may range from finding a wife to marrying off a child) and, as a reward, gains his private objective,his liberty. This is a slave who has the intelligence,and eventuallyattains the status, of a free man; but there is another type of slave who is a convenientve- hicle for the traditionalservile humor, who provides the sullen bad tem- per, the cursing, the drunkenness,the indecency,thievishness, and coward- ice which are the traditionalcharacteristics of the comic slave. He may have the same ambition as his cleverer fellow, but not the same capacity;he forms grand designs, but through stupidity (often through the direct in- tervention of the clever slave) he fails miserably,and is humiliated and punishedwith blows or a stint at the mill.

This content downloaded from 137.140.1.131 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:23:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE TEMPEST AND NEW COMEDY 209 I do not believe that this distinction can be so easily made. It is true that the intriguing slave, usually the most fascinating character of the play in which he appears, is distinct from a group of lesser bondsmen. In the best test cases (that is, plays containing both "types"), such as the Mostellaria and the Miles Gloriosus, it must be admitted that Tranio is not the same kind of dramatic vehicle that Phaniscus and Pinacium are; they have different stage roles to fulfill. (When Mr. Knox compares Ariel and Caliban to these two kinds of slave, he assumes not only a difference in dramatic role between the kinds, but a difference in nature.) Nor does Palaestrio have the same sort of part to play as Sceledrus or Lurcio. I agree that these less important slaves and others, like Palinurus of the Curculio, are "a convenient vehicle for the traditional servile humor". In this sense there are indeed two slave types in New Comedy, but the distinction does not really extend so far as Mr. Knox says it does. There are slaves, for example, ostensibly belonging to one type, whose characteristics overlap with those of the other group. There are relatively minor slaves, displaying a good deal of intelligence and wit, who, it seems to me, cannot be separated from the intriguers on the basis of intelligence. It happens only that their role in a particular drama is not the largest one. This is true of Palinurus in the Curculio, of Paegnium in the Persa, of Simia in Pseudolus and of Pinacium in the Stichus. Conversely, the intriguing slaves almost never lack the characteristicswhich Mr. Knox assigns to the second type. Many are impudent, some indecent. Pseudolus is a master intriguer, but also a drunkard. Mr. Knox uses Toxilus as an example of a cursing slave- "Caliban is a . . . cursing slave (a Toxilus) . . ."-but Toxilus is also the intriguer of the play in which he appears. Another difficulty with dividing the slaves of New Comedy into two types is that there are some who fit neither category. Sosia of the Amphitruo, Messenio of the Menaechmi, Lydus of the Bacchides, and Sagaristrio of the Persa are all possessed of an unusual seriousness and faithfulness. They are not intriguers and they are not vehicles for traditional comic effects. They may contribute to the amusement one finds in the plays, but they are individuals and not part of a stock pattern. When Mr. Knox says that the second kind of slave often has grand but unrealized ambitions, ambitions sometimes destroyed by fellow slaves, he is, I believe, obscuring the distinction which does exist between the two types. Is the lesser slave an intriguer also? There are only two plays in Roman Comedy where a slave suddenly finds the bubble of his imagined grandeur pricked. Gripus of the Rudens is thwarted, temporarily at least, by Trachalio, and in the Andria Davus, his schemes in ruins, is temporarily imprisoned. But Davus, despite his blunders, is really an intriguer and belongs with his more efficient fellows in the first group. This leaves only one example-insufficient evidence for generalization. The definition of an ambitious but stupid slave fits Caliban much better than it fits the slaves of New Comedy. There is another generally held assumption that a desire for liberty is a central motive among slaves of New Comedy. It is logical, certainly, to imagine that this must have been true in Roman civilization, but as a motive in the comedies this view is not so clearly borne out. In only three plays, the Menaechmi, the Rudens, and the Aulularia, is a desire for liberty a significant

This content downloaded from 137.140.1.131 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:23:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2IO SHAKESPEAREQUARTERLY motive for a slave's actions. In other plays where a clever or faithful slave is liberated, the action is a gratuitous one, a suitable reward for work well done. Such a release from bondage occurs in the Asinaria, Epidicus, Mercator, Poenulus, Miles Gloriosus,Adelphoe, and Menander'sEpitrepontes. Thirteen of Plautus' and Terence's plays are definitely based on intrigue. That is, they are plays in which an intelligent slave or parasite outwits one or more free members of the society with his clever schemes. These thirteen are the following: Asinaria, Bacchides, Curculio, Epidicus, Miles Gloriosus, Mostel- laria, Persa, Poenulus, Pseudolus, Andria, Phormio, Casina, and Heauton Timorumenos. (I include the last two even though the role of the slave is small in both plays.) The point is that only four of these plays-Asinaria, Epidicus, Miles Gloriosus, and Poenulus-end with the liberation of an intriguer. If we exclude the plays in which a parasite is the main character, the ratio is still only four out of eleven, that is, just over one-third. It is further interesting that in the three plays in which freedom is a definite motive for a slave's actions, not one of those slaves is an intriguer. I would suggest that a desire for liberty is not so significant in New Comedy as is often allowed and that it should not be thought of as one of the themes of that genre. I have suggested above the merit in Mr. Knox's hypothesis that The Tempest is related to New Comedy. I do not believe, however, that the relationship is quite so close as his article would lead one to believe. There are important differences which Mr. Knox concedes in general but does not specifically investigate. He begins by describing The Tempest as an "accelerated flight from probability" and emphasizes the potential dangers in such a flight, especially for comedy, which presupposes an established social environment against which it can ring the laughter which accompanies deviations from the norm. He is quite right in saying that a play like The Tempest must compensate for its fantastic setting and action through close attention to the realism of its characters."The comic poet . . . must compensate for the strangeness of the events by making the essences and relationships of the characters immediately and strikingly familiar. To put it another way, the fantasy and originality of the setting must be balanced and disciplined by a rigid adherence to tradition in character and plot." But is it quite fair to say that realism of character equals the use of established literary traditions? Mr. Knox has shifted the term of his argument, thus calling its validity into question. He could properly at this point define the place that literary tradition might have in comedy-but he does not. Instead he goes on to describe the elements of New Comedy which he finds in The Tempest. Do Ariel and Caliban really correspond to two types of slave in Roman Comedy? They are certainly Prospero's slaves, but I do not see a paradigm of the classical comic situation at work here. As I have already pointed out, there is only shaky justification for linking Ariel's obvious desire for liberty with any similar desire on the part of the Roman slaves. In addition, Ariel is an ethereal spirit. His origins are in medieval and Renaissance folklore and superstition. Shakespeare would have felt no need, I think, to give, as Mr. Knox puts it, "familiarity and proportion to the outlandish details of his nature, attitude, and condition." As an airy spirit he had his own justification for being.

This content downloaded from 137.140.1.131 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:23:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE TEMPEST AND NEW COMEDY 2II Ariel is not, in any event, a good example of the clever Roman slave. Ariel's actions originate in the schemes of Prospero. Roman slaves, on the other hand, usually invent their own intrigues to extricate their rather helpless masters from unpleasant difficulties. A look at the master in New Comedy will also help locate the proper perspective. In the typical Roman-intrigue comedy (that is, in nine of the thirteen plays listed above) the slave's or parasite's actions are aimed at tricking his real master (or his wife), usually for the benefit of the latter's son. This is true in Asinaria, Bacchides, Casina, Epidicus, Mostellaria, Pseudolus, Andria, Heauton Timorumenos, and Phor- mio. The masters in nearly all of the instances I have cited are rather foolish fellows, quite unlike Prospero. The adulescens is usually a helpless, silly boy who obviously couldn't accomplish a thing without the help of his slave. The real master, the senex, is also a rather stupid fellow-dense enough to be tricked by his own servant. The Tempest has little in common with this basic situation. Caliban's status is just as hard to pin down as Ariel's. He curses, he drinks, and he has ambitions which parallel those of Gripus. However, if we set aside the possibility of a direct connection between the Rudens and The Tempest, there is little in Caliban to link him with New Comedy. In the first place, even though he is Prospero's slave, his most obvious role, as modern scholars point out, is that of the New World savage, a creature about whom Elizabe- than adventurers had been telling all sorts of fascinating stories. There is a pronounced distortion, I believe, in equating the indecency of Caliban with that of the typical Roman slave. Caliban has actually attempted to rape Miranda (I. ii. 344-350). There is no "scurrilous Plautine slave" who even begins to behave in this manner. It is true that Plautine slaves sometimes joke about sex and often show a sexual interest in the female members of their own class (for example, Toxilus and Truculentus), but they never aspire to seduce a citizen and in no case do they attempt rape. One feels that Mr. Knox has ignored the essential distinction that the Roman slave is always civilized, whereas Caliban is not. Bowling Green State University

This content downloaded from 137.140.1.131 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:23:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions