Much Ado About Nothing: How Clever Writing Can Elevate a Common Plot
Much Ado About Nothing is one of Shakespeare’s comedies, written around the middle of his career in the year 1598. It is not difficult to see that this piece was conceived after he had had some time honing his craft; Much Ado About Nothing is one of his most well-known and beloved comedies. It has been written about and performed throughout the ages, and for sheer hilarity it is among one of his best works. Yet, the plot is incredibly ordinary. There are a few twists and a few interesting characters moments, but for the time that it was written it is similar to a variety of other plots and involves character stereotypes and clichés that were very common; however, the vast majority of people who have read, heard, or seen Much Ado About Nothing will say that this play is one of Shakespeare’s funniest pieces, despite the plot. How then can a play with a recognizably standard plot be so beloved and hilarious? It is all in the writing. The use of dramatic language, clever literary devices, and unusual characters elevate the plot and writing of Much Ado About Nothing from an average romantic comedy to something truly spectacular. While this may be subjective, with evidence from the play on how language is used and how characters wield their wits and tongues, by the end it will be clear that the play would be lesser without the clever writing that Shakespeare imbued it with.
MAAN’s plot is not much to write home about. In brief, a group of noble soldiers (Claudio, Benedick, Don Pedro (a prince) and his bastard brother Don John) stop in the town of Messina after a successful military campaign and stay with the governor of the town Leonato. Leonato has a daughter, Hero, and a niece, Beatrice. Beatrice and Benedick have an on-again-off-again love/hate relationship that mainly involves insult fencing at any chance they get, while Hero is much quieter and more docile than her cousin and is gently pursued by Claudio (think Antigone/ Ismene and Kate/ Bianca). Claudio, a war hero and noble, asks both the prince Don Pedro and Leonato for Hero’s hand in marriage, and then they both decide to wed. There are no grand shows of undying love or real examples of any passionate feelings between the two (“Much Ado About Nothing.” ). They are both noble (therefore suited for each other) and now that the war is over it is high time that they wed and begin a new life. It is all done quite properly, according to society at that time.
Don John, the bastard brother of Claudio’s friend Don Pedro, decides to ruin this union. Why? Because he is evil. There is not much more explanation besides that. He is a miserable man who finds joy in making others as miserable as him; he fully recognizes himself as evil and revels in it. There is something to be said for a character who is evil for evil's sake and enjoys that he is so, and yet Shakespeare has routinely given his villains such great motivations and backstories that his lack of fleshing out for Don John is bizarre. One cannot help but compare him to another notable bastard from Shakespeare’s body of works—Edmund from King Lear. Edmund betrays his father, brother, and one may argue kingdom because of the Machiavellian mindset that he should not serve a society that has so misaligned him simply because he was born illegitimately. Meanwhile, Don John just takes his misaligned status and runs with it, content to be the villain everyone expects him to be.
He orchestrates matters so that it appears that Hero has invited a man up to her room, therefore meaning she is not a maiden (in fact the silhouettes seen are one of Don John’s henchmen, Borachio, with Hero’s maid, Margaret). On Hero and Claudio’s wedding day Claudio denounces Hero in front of the whole town; even her father is convinced that she is unfaithful and she “dies” of shame. The only characters that have a suspicion that she has been framed are the local friar, and Beatrice and Benedick. The confluence of stressful events cause Beatrice and Benedick to announce their romantic feelings for each other, and in order to gauge Benedick’s love for her (and because Claudio has slighted her cousin) Beatrice asks Benedick to slay Claudio, who is both his friend and comrade in arms (“Much Ado About Nothing.” ).
Leonato, his brother Antonio, and Benedick all challenge Claudio to a duel over how he caused Hero’s “death”, but before the violence begins the town watch appears and announces that Hero was innocent all along; they overheard Borachio (the aid of Don John who was actually in Hero’s room with her maid) talking of the plan to frame Hero with his friend, Conrade. Wind quite taken out of his sails, Claudio laments his hastiness in denouncing Hero, and wants to repent. Leonato says that he must marry someone from his family, and on the new wedding day it is revealed that the mystery bride is Hero, who did not die. Not only is Claudio and Hero wed, but Beatrice and Benedick as well. At the double wedding, it is revealed that Don John has tried to flee Messina but was captured; a happy ending for all (“Much Ado About Nothing.” ).
So far, so standard. Shakespeare’s comedies involve a lot of misunderstandings and mistaken identities (Comedy of Errors, Twelfth Night, As You Like It; and for non-comedies, Romeo and Juliet, The Merchant of Venice, and even King Lear). It is a common plot device that characters meet or fall in love and masquerades, that a misunderstanding in language or scene is used as the catalyst for conflict, that the villain is a bastard (meaning someone born illegitimately), and (at least in his comedies) weddings and love are either a central theme or the happy ending. Such plots were common in Shakespeare’s time, and the archetypes of noble suitor, innocent maiden, evil bastard, and even the clown characters, are well known. The Mandrake is another example of this kind of story, where many of these archetypes can be seen enacting a “love” story. Other stories that Shakespeare may have used as reference for MAAN could have been Orlando Furioso (1591) by Aristo (which deals with the Scottish princess Genevera being mistaken for her maid and denounced by her love Ariodante), The Faerie Queene (1590) by Spencer (a more somber version of Aristo’s tale), Bandello’s twenty second novella (1554, no name), Histoires Tragiques (1574) by Belleforest, and even The Rock of Regard (1576) by George Whetstone. All of these stories feature plots incredibly close to the Hero/ Claudio plot of MAAN, so much so that it can only be assumed that this plot was a standard kind of story arch, used and beloved by the masses (such as Commedia Dell’arte reused characters and story plot lines). Indeed, MAAN would have been another reincarnation of this standard story arch, if not for the characters of Beatrice and Benedick.
Beatrice and Benedick’s relationship is very unusual for both characters and people of the time. Hero and Claudio’s relationship is typical, not just in terms of standard literary plots, but also standard romantic interactions during that time period. Beatrice and Benedick’s verbal warfare and caustic wit provides an interesting counterpoint to Hero and Claudio; one relationship is calm and “by-the-book” in that the courtship happens due to status and is not very reliant on feelings (we can see this by how easily Claudio can repudiate Hero), and the other relationship is based on passion and respect. Beatrice and Benedick cannot stop thinking about each other, in a word they are obsessed. They both have reasons to not wish to be romantic, and so to cover their feelings they feign distaste for each other (the sheer amount of times they bring each other up would clue their friends and family into their true feelings, so they must shift that attention from romance to disdain). Yet, the insults and barbs that they throw at each other are more playful than anything truly hateful. Like Kate and Petruchio from The Taming of the Shrew, both Beatrice and Benedick have a thorny relationship that blossoms into something intimate. However, unlike Kate and Petruchio, there is evidence that Beatrice and Benedick started out in a romantic (if a somewhat strained romance) place. They save this play from being rote; if it was not for their characters then MAAN would be one of the standard plot plays that were popular during the Renaissance. Their characters make the difference, as well as their dialogue.
Word play is incredibly important in MAAN, there is even a character (Dogberry) who’s sole comedic input is to say nothing but malapropisms. While many characters use literary devices, Beatrice and Benedick have the lion’s share. The most common devices used in MAAN are dramatic irony, hyperbole, litotes, oxymoron, paradox, and puns.
Dramatic irony is defined as: “incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play” (“Dictionary by Merriam-Webster.”). In simple terms this means that the audience knows something that the characters do not. The main use of this kind of literary device is to create tension in the audience, and to also draw them into the narrative. They know the truth of the plot, and they become more invested due to that knowledge; they want to see when the cast will learn the truth that they already know. The main use of dramatic irony in this play (as well as in all of Shakespeare’s comedies that deal with misunderstandings and mistaken identities) is that we know that Hero is innocent when the majority of the cast think that she is unfaithful. We can see this in Act 4, Scene 1 with Claudio’s denouncement of Hero:
“There, Leonato, take her back again./ Give not this rotten orange to your friend,/ She's but the sign and semblance of her honour./ Behold how like a maid she blushes here!/ O, what authority and show of truth/ Can cunning sin cover itself withal!/ Comes not that blood as modest evidence/ To witness simple virtue? Would you not swear,/ All you that see her, that she were a maid,/ By these exterior shows? But she is none:/ She knows the heat of a luxurious bed;/ Her blush is guiltiness, not modesty” (IV, i. Page 351, Lines 31-42).
Hyperbole and litotes go hand in hand. The definition of hyperbole is simple “ an extravagant exaggeration” which is usually meant to not be taken literally, while the definition of litotes is “understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of the contrary” (“Dictionary by Merriam-Webster.”). Litotes are generally understood to be the opposite of hyperboles. Both hyperboles and litotes can be seen in MAAN as a way to flavor the text. In Act1, Scene 1 Beatrice is discussing Benedick with the messenger and says, “O lord he will hang upon him like a disease” (I, i. Page 333, Lines 86-87) in reference to Benedick hanging around Claudio like a disease. She even says “God help the noble Claudio! If he have caught the Benedick, it will cost him a thousand pound ere ‘a be cur’d” (I, i. Page 333, Lines 88-90). We see that Claudio and Benedick are actually great friends, and Claudio is hardly suffering from his presence. This is hyperbole on Beatrice’s part, where she exaggerates how irritating Benedick is to the people around him, comparing him to a disease. A great example of litotes comes from Benedick in the same scene: “I would I could find in my heart that I had not a hard heart, for truly I love none” (I, i. Page 333, Lines 126-127). In much the same way that “not a bad singer” means that the singer is good, and “not unhappy” means that the person is happy, Benedick means that he wishes that he could look into his heart, but he cannot because his heart is devoid of love. The double negative comes in the form of looking into his heart, which would have been seen as an emotional thing; the affirmative is that he is heartless. Both hyperboles and litotes are used to give emphasis to statements, either to exaggerate them or to support them.
Oxymoron is defined as “ a combination of contradictory or incongruous words” such as the term “jumbo shrimp” (“Dictionary by Merriam-Webster.”). A great example of this comes when Claudio is repudiating Hero in Act 4, Scene 1 “Thou pure impiety and impious purity!” (IV, i. Page 3352, Line 104). Claudio is claiming Hero is pure in her impurity (she seems to “feign” innocence of her being unfaithful). These two opposite terms being put together is an excellent example of oxymoron, used in quite a cruel way. Another literary device used quite often is paradox, which is defined as “a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true” (“Dictionary by Merriam-Webster.”). The best example of paradox in MAAN is actually the title. The title states that there is “a lot to do about nothing in particular” when quite the opposite of nothing is happening.
Puns are rampant in MAAN, as was common in Elizabethan comedies. Word play, mainly through the use of puns, made up the bulk of a comedies’ hilarity (that and some aspects of physical humor at a character, mainly the clown character’s, expense). Pun is defined as “the usually humorous use of a word in such a way as to suggest two or more of its meanings or the meaning of another word similar in sound” (“Dictionary by Merriam-Webster.”). To exemplify both puns, as well as the clever use of all of the devices defined above, one need only look at Beatrice and Benedick’s “fight” during Act 1, Scene 1. This is the first time the audience gets to see how these characters interact, even though it has already been hinted at by Leonato, and this “fight” is the first bit of both comedy and clever word play we see in the play.
BEATRICE. I wonder that you will still be talking, Signior Benedick: nobody marks you.
BENEDICK. What, my dear Lady Disdain! are you yet living?
An example of bother personification and hyperbole; Beatrice is literally disdain incarnate, and Benedick is surprised that she is alive (even though he should have no reason to think that she would be dead, it is simply said to upset her).
BEATRICE. Is it possible disdain should die while she hath such meet food to feed it as Signior Benedick? Courtesy itself must convert to disdain, if you come in her presence.
More hyperbole. Benedick feeds Beatrice’s disdain, so much so that common courtesy becomes disdain when she sees Benedick.
BENEDICK. Then is courtesy a turncoat. But it is certain I am loved of all ladies, only you excepted: and I would I could find in my heart that I had not a hard heart; for, truly, I love none.
Personification and litotes, as described above.
BEATRICE. A dear happiness to women: they would else have been troubled with a pernicious suitor. I thank God and my cold blood, I am of your humour for that: I had rather hear my dog bark at a crow than a man swear he loves me.
Hyperbole and pun. It is highly doubtful that Beatrice would rather hear a dog bark at a cow than hear someone say that he loves her, and it is just as unlikely that Beatrice’s blood is cold (meaning she is unromantic) as Benedick’s heart is hard (meaning the same thing). The pun comes in the word humour, which means both the term humorous (funny, which has survived to present times) and feeling (meaning a certain emotion or state of being). Beatrice says that she has cold blood just as how Benedick says that he has a hard heart, basically saying “I feel the same way as you”.
BENEDICK. God keep your ladyship still in that mind! so some gentleman or other shall 'scape a predestinate scratched face.
BEATRICE. Scratching could not make it worse, an 'twere such a face as yours were.
BENEDICK. Well, you are a rare parrot-teacher.
More puns. Benedick is comparing Beatrice to a parrot, copying everything that he is saying. He says that he has no romantic feelings and she says that she is the same. He mentions scratching and she throws it back in his face. He is basically saying, “you are just copying whatever I’m saying”.
BEATRICE. A bird of my tongue is better than a beast of yours.
BENEDICK. I would my horse had the speed of your tongue, and so good a continuer. But keep your way, i' God's name; I have done.
Even more puns. Benedick is saying that he wished that his horse could run as fast as Beatrice can come up with quips, and that he wished his horse would be as tireless as her mind. It is a backhanded compliment; on the one hand he just admitted that she is clever, on the other he is piggy-backing off her claim that he is a beast (from the previous line) and comparing her to his horse. And then he ends the argument by basically walking away.
BEATRICE. You always end with a jade's trick: I know you of old (I, i. Page 333-334, Lines 116- 145)
Beatrice’s final lines serve both to yell at him and to also prove that she knows him well. She is saying “you always need to have the last word, I know you too well.” And she does. Even Leonato says to the messenger that her and Benedick are engaged in verbal warfare, and this argument is certainly that. It shows not just the cleverness of Beatrice and Benedick (and how they interact) but also the cleverness of Shakespeare.
In a play that has a standard plot used in other stories, he has added to unique characters to shake up the formula. He has done things like that in other productions, such as A Comedy of Errors which is based on the Greek story of The Brothers Menaechmi. Shakespeare changed the story to include two sets of twins in order to differentiate his play from the original tale. Another example is Twelfth Night whose plot closely follows Barnaby Riche’s novella “Apolonius and Silla”. While the plot points are nearly the same (the shipwreck, twin protagonists, and characters cross dressing) the subplots and motivations are tweaked enough to make Twelfth Night stand out among other similar plots.
Shakespeare’s use of both minor plot shifts (by adding characters and subplots) and clever language elevates his pieces above the likes of other pieces of the time. The use of standard plots is not inherently bad; Commedia Dell’arte had massive success due to its use of archetypal characters and standard plot formats, and it was a form of theatre and storytelling that was popular with Elizabethan crowds. However, Shakespeare’s works may not have been as long lived as they are if they were just another example of the cookie-cutter plots that were so reminiscent of the Renaissance. There is a reason Shakespeare was a poet on top of being a playwright; his understanding of characters is indicative of a wonderful playwright, but his understanding of language is indicative of a phenomenal writer.
Works Cited
“Dictionary by Merriam-Webster.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, 2020, www.merriam-webster.com/.
“Much Ado About Nothing.” The Riverside Shakespeare, by William Shakespeare and G. Blakemore Evans, Houghton Mifflin, 1974, pp. 327–364.
