The pre-performance lecture by Felicia Harrison Londre at the Heart of America Shakespeare Festival’s rendition of Much Ado About Nothing raised the question of how to view the drama, as comedy or tragedy. The hilarity of the acting seemed to answer “comedy,” but did Shakespeare believe it was all “about nothing” or might he be asking how human nature could turn it into “something.”

We were were thoroughly entertained by the broad comedy of the Sunday night performance (Kcshakes.org, June 24, 2018).  The roles of the mocking rivals, Benedick and Beatrice, were performed with gusto, and Dogberry and the night watchmen were worthy of the Keystone Cops and the Three Stooges.  Shakespeare was never so fresh and modern on the fickleness of love.

If there is a message in a comedy “About Nothing,” it is how fragile human love can be. Both the comedy and pathos thrive on the sudden changes of emotion in the characters. Claudio returns from war with a fierce longing for Hero. Benedick and Beatrice  maintain a suspicious taunting relationship that implies that love could be beneath the surface. Leonato dotes on his only daughter, Hero, delighted to see her engaged to Claudio. The cameraderie of  Don Pedro and his officers expresses the strongest manly affection.  Don Pedro even undertakes the challenge of bringing together the intractable rivals, Benedick and Beatrice, by friendly conspiracy with his officers and Leonato.

Soon after the play resumes from its intermission, Claudio has been poisoned with the suspicion of Hero’s infidelity, Leonato has turned viciously against  his daughter Hero on the same suspicions, Benedick has turned against his best friend Claudio to defend Hero’s honor, and Don Pedro has been alienated from Claudio by Hero’s vengeful father (Leonato).  The middle acts of the play threaten tragic outcomes, because of a diabolical plot to shame Hero and bring havoc on the brotherly affection of the soldiers.

The “About Nothing” of the story suggests how emotions can be turned on mere suspicions and outright falsehoods. You only have to recall Othello to note that suspicion and falsehood are not always exposed in time to avert tragedy. The main difference between the eternal villain Iago and the frustrated misanthrope Don John (the perpetrator in Much Ado) is that one successfully executes his conspiracy against Othello, and the other is caught by a comic device, the goofy night watchmen and their inarticulate captain, Dogberry. The likelihood of such devious plotting being caught by the 17th century Keystone Cops is faint. They are as probable as Inspector Clouseau capturing a brilliant jewel thief.

If we want to view Much Ado About Nothing as a cautionary almost-tragedy, we can recognize the fickleness and vulnerability of love, the romantic, the parental, and the filial. It can all collapse in a lie that easily undermines trust and turns devotion into scorn.  Analyzing too closely we see that no one questions the evidence that contradicts all their previous experience with their lover, their daughter, their comrades. That’s why it becomes funny when the sinister plot unravels, because everyone sees how easily they have been duped. That’s what makes good comedy.

But if we take the lecturer’s question seriously and see the tragic possibilities of the play, we learn that fickle love is illusionary love.  Essential love is not fragile or easily disillusioned. Othello’s jealousy is based on his inability to evaluate the reports he hears of Desdemona’s infidelity (in Othello). Claudio’s youthful insecurity makes him susceptible to the lie of the unlikely betrayal of Hero, who worships him. Benedick’s sudden infatuation with Beatrice makes him turn on his dear friend Claudio to please her. None of these characters challenge the illusion of infidelity, because they can not confront, and give a hearing to, the victims of these lies. How susceptible are we to false information and sinister plots against fidelity?