Merry Wives of Windsor - Act I

[Scheherazade]

Please post your comments on Act I in this thread.

Scene I (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/windsor/1/)

Scene II (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/windsor/2/)

Scene III (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/windsor/3/)

Scene IV (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/windsor/4/)

[Janine]

Yeah! Finally, I have found the thread. I will get started on read it tonight.

[Virgil]

Whoa, is it time already? I didn't finish commenting on the last play.

[Janine]

Same here actually... Hey, Virgil, check out the thread - Petrarach posted a link to her blog entries on the play WT and they are very helpful. I copied them to read offline. Hey, it is never too late to keep commenting on the previous play. I hope to comment on what she has written.

[Alexei]

I think to take part of the discussion too, so I'll start reading today :)

[Janine]

I have only read one page so far - was curious to see what it was all about. It is funny, I get the impression that the focus is discussing money matters between Shallow, the priest and the others. It very much reminds me of the discussion between the arhbishops or priests at the beginning of "Henry V", except this discussion doesn't seem quite as dire. Still first impression is that these guys are plotters and money mongers. I hope to read more of the play tonight. I know some of the characters already from reading "Henry IV, V." I know of Nym, Bartoff, and Pistol, and of course, Sir John Falstaff, himself. They are a mix of humor and later much pathos in Henry V. I am glad we are reading this play, since my goal was to read all the history plays, eventually. This one, although a comedy, that should fill in some of the blanks about Falstaff. He is suppose to be one of the most colorful characters that Shakespeare imagined.

Alexei, glad you will be discussing it also.

[Virgil]

Same here actually... Hey, Virgil, check out the thread - Petrarach posted a link to her blog entries on the play WT and they are very helpful. I copied them to read offline. Hey, it is never too late to keep commenting on the previous play. I hope to comment on what she has written.

I saw Petrarch's comments in her blog and commented. Thanks anyway.

[Janine]

I saw Petrarch's comments in her blog and commented. Thanks anyway.

Those comments were good; and the followups were as well, quite helpful. I read most of them.

[Janine]

I see we have not gotten too far so maybe there is still hope for me. I did read a few pages so far but think I need to make a list of the characters and just who is who. I keep getting them mixed up. I will work on reading the play - not as short as I first though and I found the common language a bit tough to get through.

[Alexei]

I've finished with Scene I. I don't have a lot of comments on it though. The problem is it's saying too much and too little at the same time - it helps to understand the general situation, but doesn't give me any solid impression of anything else. I suppose I am a bit behind in the reading, but tomorrow, I will continue with Scene II and I'll try to catch up.

[Virgil]

As usual I'm behind. I will have to dig out the text.

[Alexei]

I finally managed to read Scene II and Scene III. The play is actually starting to be amusing :lol: I am not sure, but I think there is some idea the two story lines (if I can call them in this manner) are supposed to double each other.

[Janine]

Alexei, now that is now encouraging to hear; so it picks up in Scene II and Scene III. I had only read the first scene and felt somewhat lost, confused. I know now I will have to begin the play over again. I only wish I had a video recording of this play - that is usually easier for me to understand.

Virgil, I have a feeling everyone mostly is behind on this one.

[Alexei]

Alexei, now that is now encouraging to hear; so it picks up in Scene II and Scene III. I had only read the first scene and felt somewhat lost, confused. I know now I will have to begin the play over again. I only wish I had a video recording of this play - that is usually easier for me to understand.

Janine, don't worry, I was as confused as you after finishing Scene I. I reread it couple of times, but this didn't make it clearer for me :( I hope you'll be better reader than me :thumbs_up


Virgil, I have a feeling everyone mostly is behind on this one.

I have to agree on this one :lol: Obviously, I've been reading the act for more than a week, almost two weeks actually. And I haven't even managed to finish it :lol::lol::lol:

[Virgil]

Well, I'm shutting this computer off right now and going to get my text. I'll start tonight. ;)

[Janine]

Well, I'm shutting this computer off right now and going to get my text. I'll start tonight. ;)

Virgil, Good luck! and when you find out what it is all about let Alexei and I know.:(

Now that I am concentrating on "The Idiot" I think I am very behind in this play.

[lugdunum]

oh no, I'm really late... :bawling:

Started last night but I promise I'll try my best to catch up... I was really excited about this shakespeare group. Hope I'll understand what it's all about though, cuz seeing your comments I'm started to get a bit worried :)

[Janine]

oh no, I'm really late... :bawling:

Started last night but I promise I'll try my best to catch up... I was really excited about this shakespeare group. Hope I'll understand what it's all about though, cuz seeing your comments I'm started to get a bit worried :)

lugdunum, Don't lose heart. After I finish "The Idiot" I will read this play, most likely. I am way behind, also; but it only takes a few interested souls to start a lively discussion....so hang in there.

[Virgil]

Yes, I've put this on the back burner too. I skimmed the first act but need to restart. I will get to this, I promise. ;)

[lugdunum]

Hey there,

how are you all getting on with the book?

I've finished Act 1 and am starting to get a idea of the plot...

I must admit that I am glad to have purchased a copy with plenty of footnotes and explanations because otherwise I probably would have a real hard time at times.

Since this is one of my first time reading a Shakespeare play I am not yet familiar with possible recurrent themes or characters. For example I understand that Falstaff appeared in other plays. Are any other characters from other plays as well? Is Falstaff always trying to take advantage of others like he seems to be doing here? I'm a bit curious to learn more about this character... Guess I'll just have to read on :p

[Janine]

Hey there,

how are you all getting on with the book?

I've finished Act 1 and am starting to get a idea of the plot...

I must admit that I am glad to have purchased a copy with plenty of footnotes and explanations because otherwise I probably would have a real hard time at times.

Since this is one of my first time reading a Shakespeare play I am not yet familiar with possible recurrent themes or characters. For example I understand that Falstaff appeared in other plays. Are any other characters from other plays as well? Is Falstaff always trying to take advantage of others like he seems to be doing here? I'm a bit curious to learn more about this character... Guess I'll just have to read on :p

Here I am again - the third of the 'slow-to-get started' readers. I just recalled this play, when I noticed it highlighted in the listings. I had better crack down and read it, too. I think, lugdunum, this would be a difficult Shakespeare to start with. I only read scene one so far, and found it confusing, and I love Shakespeare and have read many of his plays and usaully get into the language, after awhile; then I do understand most of what is said; usually comprehension increases on second and third readings or hearing it recited on audiofiles or performed in some form. It does help to have notes or a dictionary handy to interpret the Old English expressions and words. I actually particularly enjoyed the histories and there is where you will find Falstaff reappear. He appears again in Henry IV. "Henry V" is one of my favorite of the histories. In this play he may be mentioned, but he (himself) may not physically be in the play, I don't believe. "Richard III" is a dynamic play with lots of plot twists; seems to me very much like a thriller - that has become one of my favorites. Asside from all this I need to get reading tonight on this particular play - MWOW. I seem to have more trouble comprehending Shakespeares comedies than his tragedies, which actually I do prefer.

Virgil and lugdunum, See both of you back soon.

[Janine]

Just read Act I and got a real kick out of it. I pretty much understood the gist of it all. Everyone is tricking everyone else. For the record, some of the characters also show up in Henry IV, parts 1 and 2 - Nym, Bardoff and Pistol. These three carry over into Henry V as well and play prominently. Falstaff is mentioned in Henry V - I now recall the scene, but he never appears in-person. An account by a character is set forth in that scene which is significant to the story.

In Act I, I underlined the words or phrases, I was not sure of. I will post some of those and maybe lugdunum, you can help me understand them better with your notes. I read it online and it was easy to underline things I want to quote. Too tired out now but tomorrow may be good. Virgil may know some of the references to the latin/historical names, etc. I thought the scenes very humorous, because of the way each character speaks the common form of English, dropping various letters. Also, some of their analogies are downright hilarious.

[Janine]

Oh geez, I have totally neglected this thread for days; so sorry. I sadly admit, I only got to Act II in my reading...eek.. no further. Does anyone still wish to discuss it? I am willing to pick up from where we left off. I forgot all about listing those phrases, but will be glad to do so tonight or tomorrow.

[Janine]

Ok, here are some of the words or phrases I am not sure of - their exact meaning:

SHALLOW
Sir Hugh, persuade me not; I will make a Star-
chamber matter of it...

I take it this following exchange is a joke, can some explain it to me better? I think I get the gist of it, but not quite.

SLENDER
In the county of Gloucester, justice of peace and
'Coram.'

SHALLOW
Ay, cousin Slender, and 'Custalourum.'

SLENDER
Ay, and 'Rato-lorum' too; and a gentleman born,
master parson; who writes himself 'Armigero,' in any
bill, warrant, quittance, or obligation, 'Armigero.'

Now this interchange and I don't think I totally get it. Anyone explain?

SIR HUGH EVANS
The dozen white louses do become an old coat well;
it agrees well, passant; it is a familiar beast to
man, and signifies love.

SHALLOW
The luce is the fresh fish; the salt fish is an old coat.

Are 'louses' like or lice? Also, does Shallow mistake what he says for the word 'luce' and is that indeed a fish. Why does he say "the salt fish is an old coat"?

Help, anyone have notes with their addition? I think I am missing out on the humor of these jokes. I will post more later after someone helps me with these...well, hopefully I will get some help...

[lugdunum]

hey there. I'm sorry I've neglected this thread too (and the whole forum actually). I've had a rough time at work and have had to work overtime for about a month now...

I do however have answers for you Janine thanks to the notes in my book. I'll post them tonight.

[Janine]

hey there. I'm sorry I've neglected this thread too (and the whole forum actually). I've had a rough time at work and have had to work overtime for about a month now...

I do however have answers for you Janine thanks to the notes in my book. I'll post them tonight.

Oh don't be sorry, I have been as guilty. I still need to read the rest of the play.:( Sorry you had such a difficult week at work this month. I used to hate overtime. One gets so tired out.

Oh good, lugdunum, that will be such a help. I usually get the gist of what is being said but wanted to be totally clear on the words and phrases that I underlined. Thanks so much. I will have more for you so if you have the time -I will space my entries out - it would be greatly appreciated.

I am having a bit of a problem today with my right eye - probably a dry eye erosion - I sometimes wake up with them this time of year. It is quite painful; putting drops/ointment in has made my eye totally blurry. I can't stand this stabbing pain. If it keeps up, I will have to go to my opthamologist on Monday; usually this will resolve itself, but I should not be on the computer; so I won't be on much today. Take your time with the answers to my questions above. I will try and check in later to see, if you posted anything.

[lugdunum]

Thanks for the sympathy Janine. But don't worry, I like my job a lot so I don't mind the overtime so much. It's just that Shakespeare is not the most realxed a laid back kind of book I feel like reading after spending 11 hours in the office ;)

Ok there we go with the notes:


Ok, here are some of the words or phrases I am not sure of - their exact meaning:

SHALLOW
Sir Hugh, persuade me not; I will make a Star-
chamber matter of it...

I take it this following exchange is a joke, can some explain it to me better? I think I get the gist of it, but not quite.

I'm not sure about the joke. My notes explain that there is a room (chamber) in the Westminster palace that has stars painted on the ceiling. The council used this room for the trials of those whose rank enabled to avoid common trials. So it's actually a refernce to that room and because he thinks of himself as a very important person.



SLENDER
In the county of Gloucester, justice of peace and
'Coram.'

In latin there are two very different words:
- coram which means "in sb.'s presence" used in legal context, and
- quorum= group of eminent judges of a county. [/QUOTE]

This confusion is used to show that Slender has very little knowledge of latin.




SHALLOW
Ay, cousin Slender, and 'Custalourum.'

Custolarum is the contraction of the latin words Custos rotulorum = the main judge of the county.



SLENDER
Ay, and 'Rato-lorum' too; and a gentleman born,
master parson; who writes himself 'Armigero,' in any
bill, warrant, quittance, or obligation, 'Armigero.'

here is another example of Slender's poor knowledge of latin. Rato-lorum is his attempt at saying Custolarum.
Armigero comes from armiger which means under arms.Slender's mistake here is that he uses the ablative form instead of the nominative form.



Now this interchange and I don't think I totally get it. Anyone explain?

SIR HUGH EVANS
The dozen white louses do become an old coat well;
it agrees well, passant; it is a familiar beast to
man, and signifies love.

SHALLOW
The luce is the fresh fish; the salt fish is an old coat.

Are 'louses' like or lice? Also, does Shallow mistake what he says for the word 'luce' and is that indeed a fish. Why does he say "the salt fish is an old coat"?

Slender mentions that "They may give the dozen white luces in their coat". Luces referring to the fish (most commonly called a pike). But Evans being Welsh he understands louse. And then, with his pronounciation of the word coat as coad Shallow understands cod, hence the confusion and his saying: "The luce is the fresh fish; the salt fish is an old cod". (Well at least that's how it appears in my version)

I trust that this will help. Any other ideas anyone?

Janine I hope your eye gets better :)

[Janine]

lugdunam, that was totally helpful and revealing. Now I get it completely. Thanks so much for posting this for me. I will post some more of Act I. Funny play, isn't it?

[Virgil]

I'm finally mid way through the play and feel confident enough to post something on the first act.


I've finished with Scene I. I don't have a lot of comments on it though. The problem is it's saying too much and too little at the same time - it helps to understand the general situation, but doesn't give me any solid impression of anything else. I suppose I am a bit behind in the reading, but tomorrow, I will continue with Scene II and I'll try to catch up.


I finally managed to read Scene II and Scene III. The play is actually starting to be amusing :lol: I am not sure, but I think there is some idea the two story lines (if I can call them in this manner) are supposed to double each other.

Yes, it's hard to come up with comments and the fact is there is a lot of short movements form one thing to another. And so that is my comment. Notice all the events that are running across the stage. I jotting these down:

1. Shallow seeks justice on wrongs done to him by Falstaff.
2. Shallow's group will try to arrange a marriage between Slender to Anne page.
3. Shallow seeks justice on the wrongs done to him by Falstaff's friends.
4. Falstaff seeks to seduce Mrs ford and Mrs Page.
5. Falstaff seeks to rob Mr. Ford's money through Mrs. Ford.
6. Nym and Pistol plan to betray Falstaff and reveal his plots.
7. Mistress Quickly will try to help Slender marry Anne page.
8. Dr. Caius wants to get Anne Page for himself.
9. Fenton wants Anne Page.
10. Dr. Caius seeks to revenge himself over Sir Hugh.

And that's just what I caught. There may be even more. It seems like a Marx Brothers movie. :lol: Things are just flying right and left and none of the themes/motifs fully developed. They just exist. In a tragedy there is so much more introspection and depth to the situation. Even in the more intellectual comedies there is depth and introspection. But this is farce and depth and introspection would get in the way. Events must happen fast and with pace and be shallow.

And "shallow" brings us to the characters. Except for the women they are all rather wonderfully shallow. :D Farce requires human stupidity and there is lots of stupidity here. :lol: The only normal one may be Fenton, and even he's got a wart on his forehead. :D

[Janine]

I'm finally mid way through the play and feel confident enough to post something on the first act.

I don't think I am that far yet but will try and read some tonight.


Yes, it's hard to come up with comments and the fact is there is a lot of short movements form one thing to another. And so that is my comment. Notice all the events that are running across the stage. I jotting these down:

1. Shallow seeks justice on wrongs done to him by Falstaff.
2. Shallow's group will try to arrange a marriage between Slender to Anne page.
3. Shallow seeks justice on the wrongs done to him by Falstaff's friends.
4. Falstaff seeks to seduce Mrs ford and Mrs Page.
5. Falstaff seeks to rob Mr. Ford's money through Mrs. Ford.
6. Nym and Pistol plan to betray Falstaff and reveal his plots.
7. Mistress Quickly will try to help Slender marry Anne page.
8. Dr. Caius wants to get Anne Page for himself.
9. Fenton wants Anne Page.
10. Dr. Caius seeks to revenge himself over Sir Hugh.

And that's just what I caught. There may be even more. It seems like a Marx Brothers movie. :lol: Things are just flying right and left and none of the themes/motifs fully developed. They just exist. In a tragedy there is so much more introspection and depth to the situation. Even in the more intellectual comedies there is depth and introspection. But this is farce and depth and introspection would get in the way. Events must happen fast and with pace and be shallow.

And "shallow" brings us to the characters. Except for the women they are all rather wonderfully shallow. :D Farce requires human stupidity and there is lots of stupidity here. :lol: The only normal one may be Fenton, and even he's got a wart on his forehead. :D

Virgil, I like the way you outlined all this. Hey, do you have Spark's notes?;):lol:.... just kidding. Anyway, what you point out about the plot and the way it is ordered or disorderly, is exactly what I have observed so far. I like the way you contrast the farce and tragedy; I fully agree with you. I think this is why I always have problems with Shakespeare's comedies, but can fully comprehend his tragedies, with little outside help. They are 'introspective' as you say, and I can relate to that much better. The last play, "A Winter's Tale", had enough tragic elements in it, that I could understand it right off. This play miffed me and set my mind reeling, at first. It seemed so much more difficult to me to fully comprehend the meanings in what the characters were saying - many double meanings at that; I imagine others here, had a similar problem with this play and the jokes or farces, double meanings. Most certainly it is about human stupidity; that is a good way of putting it. Even the names of the characters imply it. I will try and look at it now, from this perspective when I get back to my reading - hopefully tonight.

Thanks for posting and your comments were really good. I think this farce is more difficult to understand than tragedy, at least for me.

Hhaha - does indeed sound like a Marx Brother movie! :lol: ...pretty silly stuff....

[Virgil]

I don't think I am that far yet but will try and read some tonight.



Virgil, I like the way you outlined all this. Hey, do you have Spark's notes?;):lol:.... just kidding. Anyway, what you point out about the plot and the way it is ordered or disorderly, is exactly what I have observed so far. I like the way you contrast the farce and tragedy; I fully agree with you. I think this is why I always have problems with Shakespeare's comedies, but can fully comprehend his tragedies, with little outside help. They are 'introspective' as you say, and I can relate to that much better. The last play, "A Winter's Tale", had enough tragic elements in it, that I could understand it right off. This play miffed me and set my mind reeling, at first. It seemed so much more difficult to me to fully comprehend the meanings in what the characters were saying - many double meanings at that; I imagine others here, had a similar problem with this play and the jokes or farces, double meanings. Most certainly it is about human stupidity; that is a good way of putting it. Even the names of the characters imply it. I will try and look at it now, from this perspective when I get back to my reading - hopefully tonight.

Thanks for posting and your comments were really good. I think this farce is more difficult to understand than tragedy, at least for me.

Hhaha - does indeed sound like a Marx Brother movie! :lol: ...pretty silly stuff....

Thanks Janine, and Act II is even funnier. I'll comment on Act II tomorrow, but that's where the plot really moves along into its rediculous nonsense. :D

[Janine]

You mean ridiculous - not spelled with an 'e'...unless you have an accent you are not telling me about....haha......now we are being ridiculous ourselves....

Glad you saw my comments. Will check on your comments tomorrow. Going now to watch a movie - an Ibsen play "Ghosts".