Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

To sing a song that old was sung,
From ashes ancient Gower is come,
Assuming man’s infirmities
To glad your ear and please your eyes.


By any measure available here on goodreads, this is one on Will’s worst plays. In terms of the average rating from my friends (3.0) it’s only beaten (on the downside) by the 2.75 of Cymbeline. Probably has something to do with the fact that it isn’t one of Will’s plays. Wasn’t included in the First Folio of 1623 (even though it had been printed during his life with his name on it); then was included (with six others) in the third Folio (1664). Of those seven, Pericles is the only one to survive in my edition of his works - the other six have been tossed away.

BUT � it’s known that he had no hand in writing most of the play. Nothing of the first two acts, then “some� of what follows. In particular, it’s known that he wrote the two brothel scenes in Act IV (IV.ii and IV.vi). Of course my Shakespeare is over sixty years old. In that time it’s certain that the vast bulk of Shakespeare research and scholarship has been concerned with nothing but trying to establish exactly which words of this play were written by Will! One current theory is that Shakespeare is responsible for only the indefinite articles in the play. The rather shocking evidence for this claim is a scrap of paper unearthed a few years ago, which seems to be in Shakespeare’s handwriting, reading, “I.ii A a an a�. Compare this to

SCENE II. Tyre. A room in the palace.

[Enter PERICLES]
PER. [To LORDS without] Let none disturb us. �
Why should this change of thoughts,
The sad companion, dull-eyed melancholy,
Be my so used a guest as not an hour �

[then, 37 lines later, the next indefinite article appears]

� but a spark �

So apparently, Shakespeare had supplied a complete list of the indefinite articles, and the order in which they were to be used in the play. (Something of the reverse of the great Italian Renaissance painters who would leave minor parts of paintings for underlings to do. Here the master did the small work.)


Which Pericles?

Some readers may know of the great Athenian orator and statesman who went by this name



Not the guy. This play is based on a Roman tale from the fifth or sixth century about a different Pericles, this one a prince of Tyre.




As you can see, not so impressive a specimen.

Anyway, the Roman piece was retold in English by a cat named Gower, a contemporary of Chaucer, back around 1400. It’s an exceedingly long, complicated tale, taking place in several different locales: Antioch, Tyre, Tarsus, Pentapolis, Ephesus, Mytilene, plus scenes on more than one ship. (The Elizabethan production won a Tony award for set design.) (view spoiler)[One of the fascinating discoveries of recent scholarship is that these Mediterranean locations listed in the third Folio were not the locations used in the Elizabethan production. Instead, these locations were all cities in Florida - with of course the most exciting scenes of the play (including the brothel scenes) taking place not in Mytilene but in Miami. (hide spoiler)]

Turns out the story as told by Gower is nearly identical to that in the play we’re talking about. Obviously the copywrite had expired, or Will and his collaborators would have been sued.

But it’s interesting that in the play, perhaps through agreement with some of Gower’s heirs, Mr. Gower is given a part to play � and it’s an important part. He comes on at the beginning of each act (and at play’s end) to tell us the many many bits of this abstruse story which couldn’t possibly be staged with the budget they had. “Gower� is actually listed as “CHORUS� in the play, obviously as a tip of the hat to Sophocles and the other Greek dramatists � though for what reason, the abundant Pericles scholarship has not yet unearthed.


The Play as I read it

When I had been randomly directed to read Pericles as the next stop on my travels through Shakespeare, (view spoiler)[All is number. I am bound by this philosophical tradition that runs from the ancient Greeks up through the contemporary philosopher Nate Silver. (hide spoiler)] I was flummoxed about whether I should even bother reading the play, given that it wasn’t written by the Bard. I first decided to read only the parts that the Master was responsible for. It took me about twenty minutes to carefully go through the text searching for all the indefinite articles, and reading each one. It was kind of boring, but gave me a definite feeling of accomplishment. Thumbs up!

The exercise also left me empty emotionally, however. Thumbs down.

Next I determined that I would read at least the parts of the play specifically mentioned in the Intro. These were I.iv, II.iv, II.v (of which it was said “puerile melodrama so badly written that they might almost be parodies (view spoiler)[idea?! (hide spoiler)] of Elizabethan drama at its worst�) plus the two brothel scenes.

Armed with this list I then proceeded (drudge that I am) to work through the whole thing again. I read from the beginning, up through II.v; then sort of skimmed (to follow the story a bit) Act III, started reading more closely at Act IV, and sort of got drawn in, so read the last two acts with attention and even some pleasure.

(My judgement of the three “puerile� scenes: I.iv, “said to be puerile. I can take a hint.�; II.iv, “sort of empty�; II.v, “THIS WHOLE SCENE REALLY IS RIDICULOUS�.)

The brothel scenes. These really were written to make one feel back in Shakespeare. However, I must say that the first scene illustrated very well the disadvantage of reading, rather than seeing, a play. I made a note, “Maybe this is meant to be funny? Not very funny to me.� After all, a scene in which a fourteen year old girl is sold by pirates to a brothel, where she is to become one of the workers, can only achieve a reaction of amusement when it is played for laughs, as it no doubt was. This became more apparent near the end of the scene, and was very much so in the second brothel scene.

The play is sometimes described as a tragicomedy, a “type� which became increasingly popular in early seventeenth century London, thanks to the plays of this type written by Beamont and Fletcher in their brief and popular run as collaborative writers.

Rating

Well � Though I didn’t read the whole play, I did read (or “read�) a good bit of it. And don’t forget, I read all the indefinite articles.

The play was probably written in 1608. Shakespeare was 44; not too old, but in fact in the last decade of his life. He wrote only four more plays after this one, the best (from our point of view) being The Tempest. So I’m willing to give him a break here. Getting a commission to supply only the indefinite articles was, I think, a well-deserved coup. Whatever else he supplied of the latter part of the play seems quite well done. Yeah, it has a bit of the feel of a high-school play. Compared to most of his plays it’s pretty light, to say the most.

But I actually enjoyed the happy-ending denouement. The good guys and bad guys got sorted out and bestowed with their just deserts. I suspect it might be a fun play to watch, with the right over-the-top production. Then off to an after-play debauch, or something of the sort.

The rating I gave (4) is mainly to try to bring the average up a little � not too hard to do when so few ratings have been given. I’d probably feel more comfortable with 3 ½ or even 3 1/3.

If you're a Shakespeare completist you probably don't need encouragement. But if you do, you needn't shy away from this play, it’s worth a look.