Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T01:24:32.760Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dramatic Conventions in All's Well That Ends Well

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Robert Hapgood  and
Robert Y. Turner
Robert Hapgood
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside
Robert Y. Turner
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The best parts of Robert Y. Turner's article “Dramatic Conventions in All's Well That Ends Well (PMLA, lxxv, Dec. 1960) concern the denouement of that play. He acutely points out that it is Bertram, with his agonies and perplexities, not Diana, who ”holds the center of the stage“ during her long series of paradoxes; he shows how Shakespeare has added details to his source which prolong and intensify Bertram's distress; and he relates this distress to that of other similar heroes as well as to that of earlier comic butts. I should like, however, to question a number of other points in this article and thereby to challenge as unproved what I take to be its main thesis: that in All's Well Shakespeare ”produced a comedy more of an age than for all time“ because he chose there to follow a contemporary vogue for ”prodigal son comedies“ whose conventions ”have lost their savor.“

Information

Type
Notes, Documents, And Critical Comment
Information
PMLA , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , March 1964 , pp. 177 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Mr. Turner remarks that his expression “prodigal son plays” was chosen “for lack of a better term.” i share his dissatisfaction. Although in most of the plays a parent of the prodigal does appear (Measure for Measure and The Dutch Courtesan are exceptions), the hero's waywardness (with the possible exception of The London Prodigal) is mainly matrimonial and only incidentally filial.

2 The matter comes up again later in the article: “lust is taken for granted as motivating the actions of Young Master Arthur in How a Man May Choose a Good Wife from a Bad, of Sir Eustace Vallenger in The Fair Maid of Bristow, Malheureux in The Dutch Courtesan, and Young Chartley in The Wisewoman of Hogsdon, and lust alone explains why they would disregard the obvious value of their virtuous lady for another love, both wanton and obviously impractical.” Luce (who replaces the Second Luce in Young Chartley's affections) and Gratiana (who replaces Luce in his affections) are at least as virtuous as the Second Luce. One puzzles over the name of Sir Eustace Vallenger in this passage. Has Mr. Turner confused Vallenger with his father Sir Eustace?

1 Lineation refers to the edition by C. F. Tucker Brooke, The Shakespeare Apocrypha (Oxford, 1908).

2 Disagreements about Helena are not unusual. In a recently published discussion of All's Well A. P. Rossiter remarks on the difficulties in analyzing Helena. Angel With Horns, ed. Graham Storey (London, 1961), pp. 106–107.

3 Mr. G. K. Hunter's decision for dating All's Well, the one which Mr. Hapgood cites as being in accord with his opinion, rests upon its intimate relationship with Measure for Measure, a play whose date is not definite. To quote Mr. Hunter's conclusion from the introduction to his recent edition of the play in the Arden Shakespeare (London, 1959), “If All's Well is earlier than Measure for Measure it cannot be dated later than 1604—the date normally assigned to Measure for Measure, and from which I see no reason to dissent. The close interconnection of the two plays also implies that it is not much earlier either. A tentative dating of All's Well 1603–04 is therefore the outcome of this inquiry” (pp. xxiv–xxv).