The Comic Stylings of William Shakespeare: Or Are They?
Amie K. Fox '02

There has been recent academic debate as to the identity of the man (not to be politically incorrect) who wrote Shakespeare's plays. Was Shakespeare simply a brilliant man who entertained the masses with a skill unmatched in history? Was "Shakespeare" a collection of individuals who wrote for profit under the pseudonym? Perhaps, for argument sake alone, it can be granted that he was an individual who was greatly gifted, and though he "borrowed" a good deal of his plots, and worked with stock characters, and yielded to public demand wrote a well known if not world renowned collections of stage masterpieces. But, if these concessions are made: if the plots are universal, the characters stereotypical, the language and jokes those of a popular culture, than where did they come from? Shakespeare must have found his inspiration, if not his plays, in something or someone. Who, or what, then, of all that was Renaissance culture is responsible for Shakespeare's plays?

The late 1500's and early 1600's in England were, to be a bit cliched, rife with literature. The Sonnet was the popular form of poetry, "novels" and plays in folio form were infiltrating the masses, and performances of those plays were unavoidable as the populace demanded more. And they demanded comedy; bawdy, ironic, satirical, political, and gender-related humor laced the literary works. Shakespeare wrote to that demand as he developed his craft.

If in Shakespeare's early works he bent his writing to fit public tastes then the public's tastes must already have been defined. John Lyly (author of Euphues, or the Anatomy of Wit and sequel Euphues and His England) is one of the many to help define that popular culture phenomena. In defining and refining comedy of the day he also influenced many other authors and playwrights of the day. Certainly he was an inspiration to Shakespeare. (Jokinen)

Of all that was Renaissance certainly Lyly's comic mechanisms are located within Shakespeare's works, Love's Labour's Lost among the noticeable ones. It is arguable that even if Lyly was not directly responsible for Shakespeare's early comedies that he did pave the way for them; that if he did not cause the plays he certainly set their standard in style. (Cambridge History Section 8)

It is, at least, moderately obvious that Love's Labour's Lost then is a product of the inspiration of Lyly. As The Cambridge History of English and American Literature attests "…we can hardly imagine Love's Labour's Lost as existent in the period from 1590 to 1600, had not Lyly's work just preceded it." (section 11) Far too much of the play is too closely related to Lyly's works in form, characters, development and style.

That style being parallelism. As Lyly demonstrates and Shakespeare follows in Love's Labour's Lost there is a theme of noble characters being directly parallel to servants, or in this case pages (Armado and Mote). As in Lyly's Love's Metamorphosis the servants are in possession of quicker wits, but parody their "leaders" as they make the same mistakes to the effect of humor. This game of "follow the leader" is also evidenced in Shakespeare's play by King Ferdinand and his attendants as they all "fall in love" and then proceed to deny it, play act, and then do not "get the girls". (Hunter 343) This technique of Lyly's is also demonstrated in As You Like It, and also shows a kind of division, boys Vs. girls, before the characters pair off by "falling in love". (Hunter 343, 315)

It is not just a technique that is "lifted" from Lyly. Shakespeare's character Armado has the same history as Tophas in Endimion. As well as the same history, the two also share the same character development (or lack there of) traits. Both are bragging soldiers who leave the world of war for the world of love, with less than optimum success. (Hunter 315-317)

A similar plot convenience is also used by both Shakespeare and Lyly. In Love's Labour's Lost the King, Longueville and Dumaine are overheard separately as they discuss their loves so that they might resolve their issue of not being able to court women as their shared situation becomes known. In Love's Metamorphosis three nymphs speak in soliloquy complaining of their loves only to realize that they share the state and can resolve it mutually. Though Shakespeare carries the plot distinction farther certainly it's origin is a far leap from coincidental.(Gilbert 13-14)

Similarities between Shakespeare and Lyly are not coincidental, however. Though Lyly innovations were the building blocks for Shakespeare's comedies, they were both working to the same ends. Both wrote specifically for the stage, their plays to be performed in public audience. In this they were looking for royal/political favor. The plays contain a great deal of flattery to the Queen, and are less vulgar than contemporaries' works as they are trying to impress nobility and are writing with greater intellectual value. They both use soliloquy to elaborate on circumstance and incorporate song and lyric forms into their comedies. (Holzknecht 82, 103)(Coghill 132) The also use wit as a medium through which their respective characters can achieve self-realization. (Hunter 345)

Thus the humor of Love's Labour's Lost is especially remniciant of Lyly. The humor is pretentious and absurd as well as logically unbelievable (why can they not court women?). The plot is not easily followed and the ending is slightly less than happy, as the women and men do not "get together". A great deal of the humor is in folly, though it is not the characters who are fools, and so another similarity:

"What we would have here is the distinction, common enough among Shakespeare's critics, between laughter at a character(Dogberry, Armado, The Falstaff of Merry Wives) and laughter with a character (Berowne, Rosalind, The Falstaff of Henry IV). And in terms of this distinction, Lyly is certainly Shakespeare's most important predecessor." (Hunter 252)

Thus the reader finds herself amused by things that do not quite make sense and are not quite the convention and not at the antics of a character.

It is not to say that Lyly might have been Shakespeare, or even that he might have unduly aided his contemporary. But the strides made in Lyly's works and the trends that they set are abundant and therefor unignorable in Shakespeare's plays and specifically Love's Labour's Lost. This relationship deserves consideration as Shakespeare is increasingly defined and studied as one of the greatest writers time has yet known.

Works Cited
The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes. Vol. V. (1907-21) wysiwyg://5http://www.bartleby.com/215/0608.html

Coghill, Nevill. Shakespeare's Professional Skills. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1964.

Gilbert, Miriam. Shakespeare in Performance: Love's Labour's Lost. Manchester University Press. New York, New York. 1993.

Holzknecht, Karl J. The Backgrounds of Shakespeare's Plays. American Books Company. New York, New York. 1950

Hunter, G. K. John Lyly: The Humanist as Courtier. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1962.

Jokinen, Anniina. The Life of John Lyly (1554-1606). http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/lylybio.htm

[ Home ] [ Literary Influences ] [ Cultural/Historical Influences ] [ Textual/Performance History ]
[ Critical History ] [ Web Resources ] [ Site Information ]