George Washington University
The Tempest and New Comedy
Author(s): Lester E. Barber
Source: Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Summer, 1970), pp. 207-211
Published by: Folger Shakespeare Library in association with George Washington University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2868697 .
Accessed: 11/01/2014 12:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Folger Shakespeare Library and George Washington University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Shakespeare Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 137.140.1.131 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:23:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The
Tempest
and
New
Comedy
LESTER E. BARBER
N an article published in I955,1 Professor Bernard Knox suggests that the design of The Tempest is founded on certain
of the stock patterns of Greek and Latin New Comedy. He
says: "Below the strange and brilliant surface composed of
medieval magic and Renaissance travel-tales, the initial situation, the nature and relationships of most of the characters,
the development of the action, and its final solution are all conjugations of
the basic paradigms of classical comedy." Mr. Knox argues forcefully, but one
or two of his assumptions about the tradition of classical comedy are open to
question, and he tends, I believe, to oversimplify the situations of Shakespeare's
play.
Mr. Knox's suggestion seems essentially sound. His insights certainly establish a relationship between The Tempest and New Comedy. He aptly points
out, for example, that a phrase which R. A. Brower uses in The Fields of Light
to describe one component of The Tempest, the "slavery-freedomcontinuity",
applies to New Comedy as well as to Shakespeare. Brower's point is that in
The Tempest nearly every nominally free character is in some sense enslaved
for a time whereas the real slave, Caliban, fancies himself free. In New
Comedy one also finds slaves acting as if they were free and free men
temporarily enslaved. And, as The Tempest ends with a restoration of all men
to their proper natures (on a complex level), so are the slaves and masters of an
ancient comedy returned finally to their right spheres. Mr. Knox points out
that the relationship of Prospero and Ariel is reminiscent of that of master and
intriguing slave in Plautus and Terence. Ariel's first speech to Prospero is
"comparableto many a hyperbolic declaration of availability made by Roman
comic slaves." And it is also true, as Mr. Knox makes clear, that Caliban and
Gripus, a slave in Plautus' play, the Rudens, share several characteristics,chiefly
sullenness and dissatisfaction.
Mr. Knox does not mention some other elements which the Rudens and
The Tempest have in common. For example, each play contains a figure with
supernatural powers. With an eye to restoring the proper order of things, the
magician Prospero (by means of Ariel) and the god Arcturus each raises a
storm at sea, providentially sending certain shipwrecked victims to their
punishment or release from bondage. There is also a parallel between the
settings of the two plays. A rural scene is definitely unusual in New Comedy
(one exception is the Dyskolos of Menander), and an enchanted island is a
new arena for Shakespeare's action. It is true that in The Winter's Tale
Shakespeare uses a remote setting, the seacoast of Bohemia, on which to pre1 "The Tempest and the Ancient Comic Tradition", Virginia Quarterly Review, 3I
(Winter,
73-89. Reprinted in English Stage Comedy, ed. W. K. Wimsatt, Jr., English Institute
Essays (New York, 1955), pp. 52-73.
1955),
This content downloaded from 137.140.1.131 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:23:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
208
SHAKESPEAREQUARTERLY
sent the abandoning of Perdita and the destruction of Antigonus and his ship.
These events are marvelous in a way, but Bohemia is not uncharted like the
island in The Tempest, nor a place far from the courts of ordinary men. It is
fair to say, I think, that Plautus in the Rudens and Shakespearein The Tempest
were trying something new, aiming at unusual effects, and the settings themselves suggest this.
It is my belief that none of these parallels between the Rudens and The
Tempest are more than superficial. There are too many differences in tone, in
character relationships, and in action for the connection between the two plays
to be any more basic. It is true that Mr. Knox never says that New Comedy is a
direct source of The Tempest, but several times he implies that this is so:
". . . in other ways it [The Tempest] is the most rigidly traditional of all
Shakespeare's comedies-with one exception. The exception is The Comedy
of Errors, which is, however, apprentice-work, a typical Renaissance remaniement of a Plautine original." "After the long expository scene between
Prospero and Miranda (itself a typical Plautine delayed prologue)...
"All that remains is to free the clever slave . . . and the play, except for a
version of the conventional Plautine request for applause, is over, the traditional paradigm complete." These passages suggest that Shakespeare made
deliberate use of elements of Latin comedy, but there is not, I think, sufficient
justification for such a view. In fact, all the similarities between The Tempest
and New Comedy which Mr. Knox outlines seem to me to be only echoes.
There are enough of them and they are sufficiently pronounced to warrant
the use of the word "analogue".They do not warrant more.
In some of his arguments Mr. Knox accepts certain long-standing assumptions about the nature of New Comedy. I believe that two of these
assumptions, the postulation of two particular slave types, and the emphasis
on freedom as a goal of the comic slave, are not so well based as they might
be and that a reexamination of these assumptions may help clarify the relationship of The Tempest to New Comedy.
Mr. Knox says that Ariel and Caliban are, respectively, the clever and the
disgruntled slaves of Roman comedy ("Prospero is master . . . and Ariel and
Caliban are slaves"; "He (Caliban) is the surly, cursing slave of the old
tradition"), and he goes on to differentiate the two varieties of slave in the old
tradition.
A typical paradigm is the plot in which a clever slave, by intelligent
initiative and intrigue (often directed against his less intelligent fellowslaves) solves his master'sproblem(which may range from finding a wife
to marryingoff a child) and, as a reward,gains his private objective,his
liberty.
This is a slave who has the intelligence,and eventuallyattainsthe status,
of a free man; but there is another type of slave who is a convenientvehicle for the traditionalservile humor, who providesthe sullen bad temper, the cursing, the drunkenness,the indecency,thievishness,and cowardof the comic slave.He may have
ice which are the traditionalcharacteristics
the same ambition as his clevererfellow, but not the same capacity;he
forms grand designs, but through stupidity (often through the direct interventionof the clever slave) he fails miserably,and is humiliated and
punishedwith blows or a stint at the mill.
This content downloaded from 137.140.1.131 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:23:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE TEMPEST AND NEW COMEDY
209
I do not believe that this distinction can be so easily made.
It is true that the intriguing slave, usually the most fascinating character of
the play in which he appears, is distinct from a group of lesser bondsmen. In
the best test cases (that is, plays containing both "types"), such as the
Mostellaria and the Miles Gloriosus, it must be admitted that Tranio is not the
same kind of dramatic vehicle that Phaniscus and Pinacium are; they have
different stage roles to fulfill. (When Mr. Knox compares Ariel and Caliban
to these two kinds of slave, he assumes not only a difference in dramatic role
between the kinds, but a difference in nature.) Nor does Palaestrio have the
same sort of part to play as Sceledrus or Lurcio. I agree that these less important
slaves and others, like Palinurus of the Curculio, are "a convenient vehicle
for the traditional servile humor". In this sense there are indeed two slave types
in New Comedy, but the distinction does not really extend so far as Mr. Knox
says it does.
There are slaves, for example, ostensibly belonging to one type, whose
characteristics overlap with those of the other group. There are relatively
minor slaves, displaying a good deal of intelligence and wit, who, it seems to
me, cannot be separated from the intriguers on the basis of intelligence. It
happens only that their role in a particular drama is not the largest one. This is
true of Palinurus in the Curculio, of Paegnium in the Persa, of Simia in
Pseudolus and of Pinacium in the Stichus. Conversely, the intriguing slaves
almost never lack the characteristicswhich Mr. Knox assigns to the second type.
Many are impudent, some indecent. Pseudolus is a master intriguer, but also
a drunkard. Mr. Knox uses Toxilus as an example of a cursing slave"Caliban is a . . . cursing slave (a Toxilus) . . ."-but Toxilus is also the
intriguer of the play in which he appears. Another difficulty with dividing
the slaves of New Comedy into two types is that there are some who fit
neither category. Sosia of the Amphitruo, Messenio of the Menaechmi, Lydus
of the Bacchides, and Sagaristrio of the Persa are all possessed of an unusual
seriousness and faithfulness. They are not intriguers and they are not vehicles
for traditional comic effects. They may contribute to the amusement one finds
in the plays, but they are individuals and not part of a stock pattern.
When Mr. Knox says that the second kind of slave often has grand but
unrealized ambitions, ambitions sometimes destroyed by fellow slaves, he is,
I believe, obscuring the distinction which does exist between the two types. Is
the lesser slave an intriguer also? There are only two plays in Roman Comedy
where a slave suddenly finds the bubble of his imagined grandeur pricked.
Gripus of the Rudens is thwarted, temporarily at least, by Trachalio, and in
the Andria Davus, his schemes in ruins, is temporarily imprisoned. But Davus,
despite his blunders, is really an intriguer and belongs with his more efficient
fellows in the first group. This leaves only one example-insufficient evidence
for generalization. The definition of an ambitious but stupid slave fits Caliban
much better than it fits the slaves of New Comedy.
There is another generally held assumption that a desire for liberty is a
central motive among slaves of New Comedy. It is logical, certainly, to
imagine that this must have been true in Roman civilization, but as a motive
in the comedies this view is not so clearly borne out. In only three plays, the
Menaechmi, the Rudens, and the Aulularia, is a desire for liberty a significant
This content downloaded from 137.140.1.131 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:23:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2IO
SHAKESPEAREQUARTERLY
motive for a slave's actions. In other plays where a clever or faithful slave is
liberated, the action is a gratuitous one, a suitable reward for work well done.
Such a release from bondage occurs in the Asinaria, Epidicus, Mercator,
Poenulus, Miles Gloriosus,Adelphoe, and Menander'sEpitrepontes.
Thirteen of Plautus' and Terence's plays are definitely based on intrigue.
That is, they are plays in which an intelligent slave or parasite outwits one or
more free members of the society with his clever schemes. These thirteen are the
following: Asinaria, Bacchides, Curculio, Epidicus, Miles Gloriosus, Mostellaria, Persa, Poenulus, Pseudolus, Andria, Phormio, Casina, and Heauton
Timorumenos. (I include the last two even though the role of the slave is
small in both plays.) The point is that only four of these plays-Asinaria,
Epidicus, Miles Gloriosus, and Poenulus-end with the liberation of an intriguer. If we exclude the plays in which a parasite is the main character, the
ratio is still only four out of eleven, that is, just over one-third. It is further
interesting that in the three plays in which freedom is a definite motive for a
slave's actions, not one of those slaves is an intriguer. I would suggest that a
desire for liberty is not so significant in New Comedy as is often allowed and
that it should not be thought of as one of the themes of that genre.
I have suggested above the merit in Mr. Knox's hypothesis that The Tempest
is related to New Comedy. I do not believe, however, that the relationship is
quite so close as his article would lead one to believe. There are important
differences which Mr. Knox concedes in general but does not specifically
investigate. He begins by describing The Tempest as an "accelerated flight
from probability" and emphasizes the potential dangers in such a flight,
especially for comedy, which presupposes an established social environment
against which it can ring the laughter which accompanies deviations from the
norm. He is quite right in saying that a play like The Tempest must compensate for its fantastic setting and action through close attention to the realism of
its characters."The comic poet . . . must compensate for the strangeness of the
events by making the essences and relationships of the charactersimmediately
and strikingly familiar. To put it another way, the fantasy and originality of
the setting must be balanced and disciplined by a rigid adherence to tradition
in character and plot." But is it quite fair to say that realism of character
equals the use of established literary traditions? Mr. Knox has shifted the
term of his argument, thus calling its validity into question. He could properly
at this point define the place that literary tradition might have in comedy-but
he does not. Instead he goes on to describe the elements of New Comedy
which he finds in The Tempest.
Do Ariel and Caliban really correspond to two types of slave in Roman
Comedy? They are certainly Prospero's slaves, but I do not see a paradigm
of the classical comic situation at work here. As I have already pointed out,
there is only shaky justification for linking Ariel's obvious desire for liberty
with any similar desire on the part of the Roman slaves. In addition, Ariel is
an ethereal spirit. His origins are in medieval and Renaissance folklore and
superstition. Shakespeare would have felt no need, I think, to give, as Mr.
Knox puts it, "familiarity and proportion to the outlandish details of his
nature, attitude, and condition." As an airy spirit he had his own justification
for being.
This content downloaded from 137.140.1.131 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:23:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE TEMPEST AND NEW COMEDY
2II
Ariel is not, in any event, a good example of the clever Roman slave.
Ariel's actions originate in the schemes of Prospero. Roman slaves, on the
other hand, usually invent their own intrigues to extricate their rather helpless
masters from unpleasant difficulties. A look at the master in New Comedy
will also help locate the proper perspective. In the typical Roman-intrigue
comedy (that is, in nine of the thirteen plays listed above) the slave's or
parasite's actions are aimed at tricking his real master (or his wife), usually
for the benefit of the latter's son. This is true in Asinaria, Bacchides, Casina,
Epidicus, Mostellaria, Pseudolus, Andria, Heauton Timorumenos, and Phormio. The masters in nearly all of the instances I have cited are rather foolish
fellows, quite unlike Prospero. The adulescens is usually a helpless, silly boy
who obviously couldn't accomplish a thing without the help of his slave.
The real master, the senex, is also a rather stupid fellow-dense enough to be
tricked by his own servant. The Tempest has little in common with this basic
situation.
Caliban's status is just as hard to pin down as Ariel's. He curses, he drinks,
and he has ambitions which parallel those of Gripus. However, if we set aside
the possibility of a direct connection between the Rudens and The Tempest,
there is little in Caliban to link him with New Comedy. In the first place,
even though he is Prospero's slave, his most obvious role, as modern scholars
point out, is that of the New World savage, a creature about whom Elizabethan adventurers had been telling all sorts of fascinating stories. There is a
pronounced distortion, I believe, in equating the indecency of Caliban with
that of the typical Roman slave. Caliban has actually attempted to rape
Miranda (I. ii. 344-350). There is no "scurrilous Plautine slave" who even
begins to behave in this manner. It is true that Plautine slaves sometimes joke
about sex and often show a sexual interest in the female members of their own
class (for example, Toxilus and Truculentus), but they never aspire to seduce a
citizen and in no case do they attempt rape. One feels that Mr. Knox has
ignored the essential distinction that the Roman slave is always civilized,
whereas Caliban is not.
Bowling Green State University
This content downloaded from 137.140.1.131 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:23:02 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions