Michael:

I’ve long thought that the best thing to happen to Merry Wives of Windsor was Verdi’s Falstaff, which is surely one of his best operas.

The long 1.1 seems mainly devoted to characterizing the various denizens of Windsor, first Shallow, left over from 2 Henry IV, who is quarreling with Falstaff, and seems pompous and ineffective, and Slender, who hangs on Shallow, Sir Hugh Evans, the Welsh parson whose English is always a bit shaky. Slender indicates an interest in Anne Page when he learns that she will have 700 pounds, plus what she’ll have from her father. When Falstaff enters, he admits his damages to Shallow, but dismisses this. He’s accompanied by his disreputable gang, Bardolph, Nim, and Pistol, who are also quarrelsome with the Windsor folks. Pistol is accused of picking Slender’s purse, which Slender asserts and Pistol denies in blustery terms. It seems that Slender had got drunk in their company and it was not difficult to take advantage of him. Anne Page enters with wine, accompanied by Mistress Page and Mistress Ford. When the women leave, Slender wishes he had his copy of Tottel’s famous miscellany, which contains love poems that he presumably might sort through to impress Anne. It seems that Parson Evans may also be interested in her. Slender’s interest seems rather tame, and he leans on Shallow for encouragement. Anne returns and invites them in to dinner, but Slender demurs –  it’s not clear why. Is he shy and awkward? Finally he goes in, and before the others.

In 1.2 Evans comes in with Simple, Slender’s servant, and gives him a letter for Mistress Quickly, who is apparently acquainted with Anne Page, to solicit Anne’s attention to Slender. Why all this indirection?

1.3 has Falstaff needing to economize and deciding to dismiss his entourage. First is Bardolph, who is offered to the Host of the Garter. Pistol still speaks in the bombastic style he did in 2H4, a sort of parody of Marlowe. After some bandying with them, Falstaff says he has written letters to Page’s and to Ford’s wives to importune them of funds. But Pistol and Nim refuse to carry the letters and he gives them to Robin. Nim and Pistol will betray him to their husbands.

1.4 Mistress Quickly enters with Simple, who has come to deliver the letter from Evans. Simple describes Slender as “with a little yellow beard, a Cain-colored beard,” a reference to the mystery play theater. (In Act 2 Mistress Page will double this by referring to Falstaff as “a Herod of Jewry” for his deceit.) When Rugby, her servant, says Dr. Caius is come, she hides Simple in a closet. Not sure why Caius is so choleric, so irritable; perhaps it’s a “humors” thing. He is ready to use his rapier against Simple. He writes an angry letter to Evans for Simple to deliver. Fenton enters and Mistress Quickly tells him that Anne loves him, then denies it when Fenton leaves.

Does Verdi get much of this done more economically? I want to get back to the opera.

Dusty:

The old story that Queen Elizabeth, after seeing Falstaff in one or more of Shakespeare’s plays, asked for a play about “Falstaff in love,” seems odd for two reasons. One, that the Falstaff in the Henry IV plays is an old, fat whoremaster, for whom “love” means nothing but a tumble in the hay. Two, that in Merry Wives of Windsor it’s not “love” that prompts Falstaff to write to the “merry wives,” but the hope of getting access to their husbands’ money.

Then there’s the question of the date of the play, and the related question about Shakespeare’s unfolding story of Falstaff’s life. 1H4, 2H4, and H5 constitute a comprehensible sequence, through the “rejection” of Falstaff and finally the report of his death. Is MMW supposed to be an episode in Falstaff’s life between the rejection and the death? Shakespeare encourages us to think that by including in the dramatis personae several of the characters from 1H4 and 2H4, including Bardolph and Pistol and Justice Shallow. There’s also Mistress Quickly, who runs the Garter Inn, but as critics point out she doesn’t really seem to be the same person as the one who ran the Boar’s Head, and doesn’t have any history with Falstaff.

What’s more, Falstaff in this play seems much diminished from the Falstaff of the history plays, not less fat, but less funny and less inventive. And he is primarily the butt of a joke. Yes, he was the butt of a joke played on him by Hal and Poins in 1H4, but there he rose above it and remained irrepressible. Here he invents a cockamamie plot of writing letters simultaneously to Mistress Page and Mistress Ford. Why not just write sequentially, and if the first letter doesn’t do the trick, then write the second? Yes, it’s overreaching, but it seems dimwitted.

As you noted, Shakespeare takes up the whole first act setting up the plots. I don’t remember Verdi well enough to be sure, but does he maybe skip over Shallow’s complaint that Falstaff and his men have beaten him, killed his deer, and broke open his lodge, and Slender’s complain that Falstaff made him drunk and his men picked his pocket? It seems an indirect way to begin a play that’s going to be about playing a joke on Falstaff. It’s odd too that Shallow and Slender seem to be easily distracted from their complaints by the idea that Slender might marry Anne Page. (I take it that Slender is very shy and bashful.)

From 1.3 does Verdi include Falstaff’s plan to reduce expenses by furloughing his men? That detail is needed here, I suppose, to motivate Nym and Pistol, who now resolve to betray Falstaff to Page and Ford.

The presence of the Welsh Evans and the French Dr. Caius, as well as the bombastic Bardolph, leads to lots of easy laughs about malaprops, verbal blunders, and ignorance, mostly at the expense of “foreigners.”

By the end of Act 1 we learn that Anne Page has three suitors: Caius, Evans, and Fenton, the last of whom slips in briefly at the end of the act. It’s not at all clear yet that he will win her.

Dusty:

By the end of 2.1 Shakespeare has set up three comic plots, each of which involves a counterplot: in one, aiming for their husbands’ money, Falstaff writes love letters to Mistresses Ford and Page, who determine to get revenge on him for his impudence and presumption. In the second, Caius and Evans will, so they think, fight a duel over the right to Anne Page, but Shallow and the Host will play a joke on them. In the third, the jealous Ford, pretending to be Brook, will try to get revenge on Falstaff for trying to seduce his wife. But the joke will turn out to be on Ford.

“Revenge” is a recurrent element: Bardolph and Pistol declare they will get revenge on Falstaff (maybe that’s a fourth plot), Mistresses Ford and Page will get “revenge” on Falstaff, Ford will get “revenge” on Falstaff (and will “detect” his wife). And he will demonstrate to Page that he is a “secure fool.” In all three respects, Ford will fail.

In 2.2 Falstaff seems a credulous fool. First he unquestioningly accepts assurances from Quickly that Mrs. Page is waiting for him. Then he accepts money from “Brook” (Ford in disguise) and agrees to participate in a “preposterous” plot (2.2.241) to woo Mrs. Ford so that Brook can then blackmail her and force her to yield to him. Brook is also credulous, too easily accepting Falstaff’s report that he has a rendezvous scheduled with Mrs. Ford.

Revenge and credulity are treated quite differently in Shakespeare’s tragedies. Here the mood remains comic, perhaps because we don’t really expect there to be any consequences. Maybe the play’s title suggests that the central focus is not on Falstaff but on the two women, Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page, who will turn the tables on both Falstaff and Ford, but remain “merry” in their counterplotting.

2.3 shifts the focus from Falstaff and Ford to the competing suitors, Dr. Caius huffing and puffing about Sir Hugh not showing up for the duel. More bilingual jokes. Shallow in this scene recalls his riotous youth, just as he did in 2H4. (Does he think himself a reformed Falstaff?)

Maybe the appeal of MMW lies in Shakespeare’s ingeniousness in setting so many plots going at once, all of them involving counterplots, in which a foolish male aims to get access to a woman, and will comically fail. Verdi and Da Ponte saw in it the basis for a comic opera about Falstaff. Maybe they also saw in it the same kind of comedy which lies at the heart of The Marriage of Figaro.

Michael:

Yes, that old chestnut about Queen Elizabeth wanting a play about Falstaff in love seems hardly worth considering. I think it’s provenance is well into the 17th century, and it’s hard to imagine the Queen bothering with the fat knight.

Verdi and Da Ponte eliminate Shallow, Slender, Simple, and Evans, and Caius is no longer a silly Frenchman. I think the simplifying of the characters and plot is useful, maybe brilliant, especially since the Evans/Caius plot and the competition over Anne Page don’t really add up to much. They retain Falstaff’s thefts and his being broke, so the Bardolph, Pistol, Nim sacking and desertion, then return, make enough sense. Fenton and Anne, now Nanneta, are already courting, so we can have the love and courting music without the distractions. Da Ponte also brings in Falstaff’s catechism on honor from 1H4, which suggests it was already seen as a characteristic Falstaffian moment by this time.

I agree that the play really focuses on the women and makes good it’s title. Falstaff seems hopeless throughout, maybe in particular by the sending of simultaneous notes to the two wives. And of course the laundry basket trick utterly deflates him. The prose also draws attention to the town-centered, bourgeois character of it all; I think only Fenton speaks in verse, maybe as much because he’s the lover as that he has social rank.

Michael:

3.1 centers on the contest over Anne. I like the Host’s comment on Evans and Caius: “Let them keep their limbs whole and hack our English.” We might find the jokes on language less than compelling, but there’s a sitcom-like character to the whole play. The Host is a good figure to negotiate between the two foreign speakers.

Ford’s jealousy brings some piquancy into the plot. He seems genuinely — and needlessly — mistrustful of his wife, so the focus on his actions, and his disguise as Brooke, add some depth. So perhaps does Page’s disinclination toward Fenton; his favoring of Slender seems perhaps analogous to Ford’s misapprehension. Fenton is given a retrospective alliance with Prince Hal and is said by Page to “know too much,” as well being of  “too high a region.”

3.3 brings on the plot of the “buck basket” and the humiliation of Falstaff. We enjoy Mistress Ford’s comment, “I know not which pleases me better: that my husband is deceived, or Sir John.” She and Mistress Ford will plan another humiliation of Falstaff.

3.4 contrasts the forthright wooing of Fenton with the awkward and reluctant wooing of Slender. It’s clear which will be successful, in spite of Page’s opposition. And she will give no hope at all to Evans.

Falstaff recounts his being tossed in the Thames while Bardolph beings him some sack to pour over the Thames water in his stomach (a wonderful moment in the opera as the music mimics the rising tide of comfort of the sack). Mistress Quickly brings him a renewed invitation from Mistress Ford, which Falstaff falls for again. Ford as Brooke hears Falstaff recount the buck-basket adventure. But Falstaff won’t give up and assures “Brooke” he’ll continue, and Ford raves his jealousy, an almost tragic moment.

Dusty:

I’m not sure why Evans sings a Marlowe poem in 3.1 He vows “revenge” on the Host, yet another instance in the play in which one character wants “revenge” on another.

If Fenton is a friend of “the wild prince and Poins,” then presumably the play is set at some point between 1H4 and 2H4, and before Hal reforms and becomes Henry V.

It’s notable that the tricks played on Falstaff are described in advance and afterward (as in 1H4). For whatever reason Shakespeare did not want the trick sprung on the audience. I assume that in 3.3 the two wives do not realize that Ford is really coming soon, but they adjust, and Ford is foiled in his search for Falstaff.

In 3.4 it’s not just Fenton who speaks in verse. I guess it’s contagious, because Anne and Mistress Page join him in verse. 3.5 presents Falstaff after the joke has been played. He gets a good speech about his “alacrity in sinking,” a phrase that Pope liked — he quotes it in Peri Bathous and in the Dunciad. One joke on Falstaff is not good enough, so the wives plan another one (and yet a third). Falstaff tells “Brook” of his escape, which offers an opportunity for a funny speech, but it also enrages Ford, and sets up the next joke — which will be played on him, when he can’t find Falstaff in the buck basket. By now he is maddened with jealousy, as much as Othello and Leontes in later plays. Is it surprising that Shakespeare does not do more with Page? Falstaff’s letter to Mistress Page is pretty much forgotten, and has no consequences. Ford thinks Page is too “secure” in  his confidence in his wife, but Shakespeare does not follow Ford’s hint and expose him as inattentive or oblivious.

Dusty:

Act 4 is a long one, with six scenes, several of which could, I think, be cut without losses. The Latin lesson in 4.1 gives Shakespeare a chance to have Mistress Quickly hear the Latin and comically misconstrue it — more language jokes. The scene does not advance the plot in any way. What was Shakespeare thinking?

In 4.2 the wives plot to arrange Falstaff’s “escape” of detection by dressing him as the witch of Brentford. More very broad comedy. Funnier on the stage than on the page. Mistress Page gets two couplets, in which she gets to echo the title: “wives may be merry, and yet honest too.” This joke is not just a repetition of  the first, and it “builds” the comedy by being a joke on both Ford and Falstaff at the same time, especially when Ford beats the witch. But the wives are still not done with Falstaff, and plan “further revenge.” This time they will make the husbands their allies.

4.3 is another scene that could be cut. Maybe it was interpolated to make a topical reference, and to laugh at a real-life foolish knight.

In 4.4 the jealousy plot is concluded, when Ford’s nutty suspicions — for which he and we have been given no evidence — are exposed as baseless. He apologizes and in effect submits to his wife. I found it a little surprising that Ford’s foolish jealousy is concluded in Act 4: why didn’t Shakespeare arrange his plot so that both fools — Falstaff and Ford — are exposed and humiliated and punished  at the same time? The wives now lay out the third plot at Falstaff’s expense, explaining in some detail how they will tell Falstaff to dress as Herne the Hunter and to meet Mistress Ford at Herne’s Oak, and then have the children and Anne (dressed as “fairies”) pinch Falstaff. Another case of a joke described in detail in advance before it is actually played. Maybe Shakespeare’s idea is to build anticipation, and to make comic use of the discrepancy between the knowledge of those who know the script and those (Falstaff) who don’t. While this noisy plot is being prepared, the Pages quietly plot to marry Anne to the suitor they prefer: Page prefers Slender, Mistress Page prefers Caius. Both will of course fail.

In 4.5  the old fat “witch” has been observed to go up to Falstaff’s room, and Falstaff, after coming down, wiggles out of trouble by saying  she has now left. (Here he displays a little of that ability to escape after he has been cornered that he showed in 1H4.)  Bardolph then comes in to report theft of horses by Germans — this is an extension of the business in 4.3 — and the Host laments that he has been “cozened.” That’s the only link I can see to the main plot: Falstaff says “I have been cozened too.” (This bit could be cut.) Falstaff briefly considers the idea of repenting, and complains to Quickly of his mistreatment by the wives. He now tells a new version of the witch of Brentford story, complimenting his own “admirable dexterity of wit” in “counterfeiting” the witch. (“Counterfeit” is borrowed from 1H4). And though, despite his “dexterity,” he was beaten, he is still a sucker, and Quickly delivers the letter explaining, as we already know, that Falstaff must now go to Herne’s Oak.

4.6 shifts to the love plot, as Fenton plans a counterplot to outwit the Page parents and have the Host help him arrange a wedding with Anne. Fenton continues to speak in verse, the Host in prose. He seems a conventional lover, and not in any way “wild.”

Michael:

I didn’t know of the Pope quotation of “alacrity in sinking,” but it seem apt for the Dunciad.

Yes, let’s cut 4.1 in our ideal production. But I suspect it’s more of Shakespeare’s remembrance of the mild comedy of what one suspects were his schoolmastering days. Pretty lame jokes, but just the sort that come of first-year Latin lessons. And we should note the boy’s name, William.

There’s fun in the quick thinking of the woman to evade the unexpected return of Ford. We get a comic reprise of the buck basket, only this time the joke is on Ford when he goes through the laundry and doesn’t find Falstaff. The beating of the “witch of Brentford” turns the joke onto Falstaff and draws out Ford’s anger. 4.3 may be the remnant of something that was jettisoned; no need for it now. I wonder if Ford’s apology comes before Falstaff’s final humiliation to give it more emphasis, and everyone can be focused on Falstaff’s punishment. The overturning of Page’s and Mistress Page’s marital plans for Anne are also to be resolved in the final act.

I think the plots against Falstaff need to be forecast because there’s so much complication involved, maybe especially in the matter of Falstaff’s appearing as Herne the hunter. Falstaff’s comments to “Master Brooke” about the “mad devil of jealousy” in Ford serves as more blame for Ford. But it’s clear that Falstaff will be incorrigible. 5.2 and 5.3 set up the overturning of the marriage plans for Anne.

Falstaff appears in his iconic disguise as Herne with the horns on his head in 5.5. He’s now the cuckold that he had projected onto Page and Ford, and as such is brought to both Mistress Page and Mistress Ford. Evans (who seems to have a script now that allows good English) and Mistress Quickly pronounce the case against the cringing Falstaff and seem to purge him with fire. Then the fairies pinch him (the memorable “pizzica, stuzzica” of the opera). And the two couples pronounce judgement of Falstaff, who admits he is made an ass. And Ford lists the plots — and at Evans prompting reiterates his own offense of jealousy as well. The humiliation of Falstaff comes in the colorful insults of Mistress Ford, Ford, Page, and Mistress Ford, but then the Pages must accept their own humiliation in the marriage of Anne to Fenton. Fenton reproves the Pages for their attempted forcing of Anne’s marriage and the holiness of her deceit. The forced marriage her parents separately intended would have brought on “a thousand irreligious cursed hours.” Ford’s final line to Falstaff speaks the irony of his pledge to “Master Brooke.” So the resolution celebrates marriage and the mutual love that leads to marriage.

As you note, the revenge (and jealousy) plots link the play with others that treat their tragic consequences. Here the violence is controlled and limited, and Falstaff is made to pay for his greed and lust. It’s never been among my favorite plays, one I mainly value as the source for Verdi. The language joking seems tedious most of the time. But it clearly is stage-worthy and bears some resemblance to Ben Jonson’s plays. Probably what one may hold against it is the much diminished Falstaff. He just doesn’t have the wit and comic self assurance of the Henry IV plays. That may be what Verdi’s music restores to him.

Dusty:

Act 5 is short, devoted to wrapping up both the “Falstaff plot” at Herne’s Oak and the “Fenton plot” with the marriage of Fenton and Anne. Lots of activity on stage, with singing and dancing. On the page it all seems a bit anti-climactic, since the outcomes of the two plots have been clearly and thoroughly telegraphed.

Falstaff continues to be credulous, still unable to see through Ford’s disguise, and ready to wear horns. Yes, he’s a diminished thing.

A director must make a choice in 5.5. Does she/he have Evans and Quickly stumble over their rhymed couplets reading them woodenly, since these are very amateurish theatricals, or does she have them read fluently and delicately? If the latter, you have to wonder where Evans and Quickly learned how to speak so well. (As you suggest, they have apparently been provided a script; but they have also rehearsed carefully.) On the whole, I think it might be funnier if we see clumsy actors and dancers rather than fairy music and poetry recalling Titania.

Falstaff  acknowledges that he is “made an ass” — more recalling of Bottom the Weaver? Unlike the Falstaff of the history plays, who would invent some story about how he knew all about the pretend fairies and decided to play along, he is sheepish and chagrined.

The prevailing tone at the end of the scene is festive and forgiving, as even Falstaff, though chastised, is welcomed to the feast, along with Fenton, who has in effect run off with Anne despite her parents’ wishes. They instantly forgive him and decide it’s all for the best. Even madly-jealous Ford gets rehabilitated, and gets the last line, making a joke about how “Brook” is going to sleep with Mistress Ford.

All in all, perhaps the weakest of Shakespeare’s comedies. Maybe Verdi sensed that, and instead of trying to adapt, and compete with, a great play, he picked one where he thought he could, by setting a stripped-down text to music, outdo his original.