1 Answer | Add Yours
Aristotle argued that comedies consisted of lowly characters who try to and do in fact succeed in insignificant aims. The success however reveals those aims to be insignificant or/and counteracts the initial lowliness of the characters involved. This comedy is particularly interesting because of the way that it does not seem to follow this model, and also the way in which it departs from the model of Shakespearean comedies. Both classical definitions of comedy and Shakespearean comedy focus very strongly on plot and how consequences have comic effects. This is not the case in this comedy, and what little resolution there is at the end of the play is imposed by Justice Clement and clearly perceived by the audience to be artificial and lacking in concluding the series of random events that occur in which human folly is mocked. Note how Justice Clement ends the play rather weakly:
'Tis well, 'tis well! This night we'll dedicate to friendship, love, and laughter. Master bridegroom, take your bride, and lead; every one, a fellow. Here is my mistress: Brainworm! To whom all my addresses of courtship shall have their reference. Whose adventures this day, when our grandchildren shall hear to be made a fable, I doubt not but it shall find both spectators, and applause.
Given the pure chaos of the action preceeding this ending, the traditional motifs of ending comedies, judgement, marriage and banquet, seem particularly false and the resolution is felt by the audience to be somewhat lacking. Thus it could be argued that this play deviates quite heavily from the classical conception of what a comedy is through its noninteractive plot and structure.
We’ve answered 319,200 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question