All the Bloody Shakespeare - All's Well That Ends Well

Disguise isn't necessary for a certain type of man.

All’s Well That Ends Well is one of the more interesting Shakespearean comedies, at least philosophically speaking – the plot does drag a little in parts. One thing you might notice about it right off the bat is that it doesn’t read like Shakespeare. It is more grammatically modern than most Shakespeare plays and a little bit easier to read. This has led some very, very clever people to argue that it is written by Thomas Middleton.

This may or may not be true, it would be difficult to prove without at least secondary evidence. For sure, the subject matter is way off from Shakespeare’s usual woman-hating, Jew bating, servant kicking provender and a lot of critics actively dislike this play. I don’t, to be clear, it’s one of the better ones.

Anyway, to get this out of the way, the main claims to it being at least co-written by Middleton are as follows:

Firstly: The grammar tends towards clarity and simplicity of meaning and the rhyme schemes rely on proper rhymes rather than heavy assonance. I’m with them on this, I’m little more than a chimpanzee with reading glasses but the difference in style is obvious. Even to my bleary eyes.

Secondly: Shakespeare uses the word “ruttish” which he never used before or afterwards. He also uses the word ‘thitherwards’ to mean "in that direction" which I recommend you adopt in everyday speech. The only other person to use the word “ruttish” in that period of history is Middleton. I have only read a BBC article summarising the academic thinking so I won’t spend ages rebutting the claim but this seems a little thin.

Anyway, here’s the article if you feel like reading it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17828729

On disputed authorship: It never occurs to scholars that successful businessman Shakespeare stole plays to keep his theatre in the black. Or paid other authors to write under his name in a Walt Disney type arrangement. Even though these were both common practices at the time.

It doesn’t matter. There is a certain religiousness to Shakespeare and his cannon has a full Catholic church of critics. That these critics may have specific class values and may deify the bard is another post – possibly several posts. For now, I say hang the sense of it all and let's assume that if it says Shakespeare on the can then it's Shakespeare.

Back to the play, I’m a fan.

Here we have the horror story of “Taming of the Shrew” flipped on its head. All’s Well That Ends Well is about a man being forced to marry a woman.

Genius.

The play is written around the James I / Charles I period. A lot of women are being hung as witches for looking a bit funny, using herbs in their cooking or having learned things. And yet here we have this play where (aside from the king) the women run the show.

And how does Bertram (the man), react to this strong-handed display of female power? He loves it, the little tart.

For me, this reversal of gender fortunes is what makes this an interesting play, not least of all because the female characters are all sympathetic and consistent. Whereas, the male characters are jarring and morally inconsistent.

Here’s how it goes down.

Helena is the ward of Countess Rousilon (she’s a poor orphan, bless her) and she is inexplicably in love with the Countess's son Bertram – who is a horrible idiot. Helena curries favour with the king by curing him of an unspecified illness in a vague and dilatory manner. As a reward he lets her pick a husband from his court, and she of course picks Bertram.

The king then marries them on the spot.

Bertram doesn't have any choice but to go through with the ceremony. Still, he figures, if they haven’t had sex and he hasn’t given her a ring then he’s all gravy. Now, the interesting point here is that Bertram has a legitimate reason to feel hard done by, but he goes about it all in such a moany way that it’s impossible to feel sorry for him. Here’s his plan

BERTRAM.

It shall be so; I’ll send her to my house,

Acquaint my mother with my hate to her,

And wherefore I am fled; write to the king

That which I durst not speak. His present gift

Shall furnish me to those Italian fields

Where noble fellows strike. War is no strife

To the dark house and the detested wife.

So he opts to run away, and he sends her to his mother (who it’s obvious to everyone except Bertam adores Helena) with a letter saying how much he hates his new wife and asking her to be as unwelcoming to her as possible. That’s right, he actually gets his wife to deliver the letter to his mother.

Shakespeare doesn’t get funnier than that.

Bertram and his friend Parolles (a Boris Johnson type figure) run off to become embroiled in a minor war in France leaving his mother with Helena in what is one of literature’s all-time strategical errors.

Parolles is a well-painted character with shades of George MacDonald Fraser’s Flashman. He’s a roguish villain and a coward but he’s so unrepentant in it that you can’t help but like him a little. You wouldn’t vote for him as Prime Minister though, only an idiot would do that.

With the help of an attractive maid (Diana) and her mother, Bertram is fooled into taking Helena’s virginity. To achieve this, she employs the very artful ruse of turning the lights off.

Bertram thinks he’s sleeping with Diana. Bertram apparently has no idea what either of them sounds like. Typical bloke, he’s been nodding along and thinking about sex.

In one night, he has knocked up Helena and given her his ring (it’s an actual ring before anyone starts). All without once catching a glimpse at her face. If there is a moral to the play it’s either that all sex feels good in the dark or "my eyes are up here."

For a while, everyone thinks Helena is dead (because she’s been chasing after Bertram and wearing disguises). Bertram feels terrible about her death and drones on and on about how wonderful she was even though nothing has happened to make him stop hating her.

When she turns out to be fine and carrying Bertram’s child, Bertram couldn’t be happier. He hated her before but now she’s tricked him into getting her pregnant it’s all good and he couldn’t be keener to marry her.

Pay attention women, it worked for Helena. All is indeed well that ends well.

Not everyone loves the ending but it does make narrative sense.

Bertram’s sudden conversion to being in love with Helena doesn’t make immediate sense but think of it in context. There’s nothing he can do about it, so he might as well go with it. Bertram is not the sort of bloke to admit defeat, he's the sort of bloke to pretend it all worked out how he wanted it.

This is a play about a woman taking a law that is skewed against her and using it to her own ends. Who doesn’t love a plucky underdog? One that utilises the trappings of patriarchy (kingship, church / legal doctrine) to find a little happiness. There are some issues with consent here but, Jesus Christ, have you read Taming of the Shrew? Marriage in 17th century England often seems to have been an act of property and coercion, so it’s nice to see the woman get the whip hand for a change. It isn't the first play that Shakers does this in either, Portia in Merchant of Venice though far less likeable than Helena is up to much the same stuff.

The main thrust of the comedy comes from us laughing at Bertram’s misfortune and failure to have any control over his life and it is funny. I only have two problems with the play:

1. There’s a clown in it and putting comic relief in a comedy is lazy writing.

And

2. Helena uses the title of the play in dialogue, and it is paraphrased in the closing monologue. On hearing this any right-minded audience should cringe themselves to death. This is a problem in a lot of Shakespeare's plays but it might be a bit pedantic to criticise it in "Macbeth" and "Hamlet". It stands out in this one.

Overall, this is an entertaining play with a decent amount to think about.

4/5 - It’s innovative, it’s dark and the jokes are punching up.