week 8: Pericles, Prince of Tyre

Number of replies: 8

I don't provide a text this time - you can use a printed critical edition of the play available from the library or the following online edition, the only one I was able to locate containing textual notes and commentary:
https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/doc/Per_M/complete/index.html. The notes open on double-click.
Since the text of the play is badly preserved, with a number of inconsistencies and problematic readings, such apparatus is absolutely necessary to make sense of the text.

I'd like to ask you to skim through the whole play to see how the story is reorganized. With Gower making an appearance as the chorus, the derivation of the plot (and, to an extent, of its meaning) from his version of the tale is beyond doubt; yet the play introduces further modifications.

forum: look at how the tale is organized through recurrent motifs, highlighted themes and narratorial comment by Gower as chorus, and to what effect? Would you say that the chorus Gower steers the story similarly to the way it is managed in Confessio Amantis? Do you see this "steering" as in keeping / in tension with what the plot shows?

session: We will look in greater detail at the following passages: I.i-ii; II. - entire; III. prologue, i; and V. - entire; i.e. more or less the dramatic rendering of incidents selected for the previous reading (Gower).
They should provide sufficient ground for exploring the thematic structuring of the tale as suggested above, plus for the exploration of the possible motivations for and effects of the modifications in the plot and characterization which the play introduces. Beyond that, we will discuss your perceptions of the most radical "cultural relocation" (= romancing?) of the tale so far: how does it fit and what does it do in the play as a whole?

In reply to First post

Re: week 8: Pericles, Prince of Tyre

by Harriet Davoren -
One element I found most interesting between the two versions is how both depict the first princess’ complicity with her father’s interest in her. In Gower, several lines are dedicated to detailing her misery as he writes “Withinne hirself such sorghe made, / Ther was no wiht that mihte hir glade” (=Within herself such sorrow made, / There was none with that might her glad). Moreover, significant focus is given to her powerlessness in the situation as Gower also specifies “And sche was tendre and full of drede, / Sche couthe noght hir maidenhede Defende” (=and she was tender and full of dread, / she could not her maidenhead defend). Comparatively, the play does not offer the daughter any sympathy and attacks her from the outset as in Prologue she is labelled a “bad child” and “sinful dame.” This language is further reiterated upon Pericles’ solving of her father’s riddle as he exclaims: “And she an eater of her mother's flesh / By the defiling of her parents' bed, / And both like serpents are, who though they feed / On sweetest flowers, yet they poison breed.” This second statement is also notable for how it equates the father and daughter’s immorality by deeming them both “serpents.” As such, the play’s depiction of this character implicates her as complicit in the incestuous relationship.
Regarding how this difference “steers” the story, the play’s negative portrayal of the daughter lends more justification to Pericles as a hero in the eyes of the audience. Though she is allowed little complexity in either version, Gower’s minimal extensions of sympathy render her situation more tragic. The play however assigns her the same level of villainy as her father; as such, the audience is disposed to support Pericles’ refusal to pursue her when he proclaims “Good sooth, I care not for you!” and not view his abandonment as cowardly.
In reply to Harriet Davoren

Re: week 8: Pericles, Prince of Tyre

by Rose Delaplace -
After my reading, I would like to develop two points.
The first one is about the story transformed to become a theater piece. We can find elements that show that the plot is told in a slightly different manner. Firstly, it is now a performance, so elements are added to keep the audience alert, such as music. Secondly, proper theater “tools” are used to complexify the story, to advance it, to involve the public. I think of the numerous short monologues which allow us to have access to the characters’ feelings/thoughts/inner debates. We find very often the mention “[Aside]”, which means that the audience can be the only one to hear what the protagonist has to say. This way also allows us to feel the emotions and to really appreciate the story. The best example, for me, is the recognition of Marina by Pericles: “Oh, stop there a little. [Aside] This is the rarest dream /that e'er dulled sleep / Did mock sad fools withal. This cannot be / My daughter, buried.” I also thought that sometimes, using the theater genre allows to add more “dramatic” (the word is maybe too strong) effects, for example by showing the conspiracies that are prepared, such as Antiochus’ one against Pericles. It can make the audience feel stressed for Pericles’ life. It is a smart way of involving the spectator, who wants to know how everything will end for the heroes.
Secondly, I wanted to talk about Gower’s role. For me, he firstly has the same role as the ancient “choryphée” in ancient theater (or choryphae, I am not sure of what is the correct word in English). He intervenes between the acts, the scenes, to summarize what just happened, to comment on the action… He addresses the public directly and calls them to witness (« Here have you seen »…). Secondly, he is also presented as a storyteller/narrator. Thanks to him, it is possible to evoque scenes which would have been too complicated/long to put on stage. He helps the action to go on. For example, « Marina thus the brothel scapes, and chances / Into an honest house, our story says. / She sings like one immortal, and she dances/ As goddess-like to her admirèd lays. », is better told than shown. Thirdly, his last sentences, which ended the play, illustrate a strong moral dimension. Gower advocates virtues, shows that the goods are rewarded and the bads are punished. It appears as a didactic end, the audience must learn from what they have just seen.
In reply to Rose Delaplace

Re: week 8: Pericles, Prince of Tyre

by Helena Znojemská -
I'll pick the case of Antiochus' design on Apollonius. This is also present in the previous versions, but the relation between Antiochus' and Apollonius' actions is rendered differently in terms of timing. When we compare the versions, we see each successive stage tighten the links between the two, so that Apollonius' moves either anticipate or are motivated by those of Antiochus. The play, as you say, achieves the most dramatic, as well as causally and psychologically plausible, combination. The suspense is heightened, occasions are provided for situational irony etc.
Otherwise, I have little to add, only perhaps to say that the Chorus, and even more so the dumb-show, were theatrical devices which would appear rather antiquated at the time.
In reply to Harriet Davoren

Re: week 8: Pericles, Prince of Tyre

by Helena Znojemská -
As I remarked in the forum on the Latin version, the story generally exonerates Apollonius for not attempting to rescue Antiochus' daughter because the way the king's riddle describes the situation implicates her (the "I" in the riddle - despite the formulation being very obscure - fits best with her position and PoV, not her father's, so the riddle endows her with agency despite its actual absence). In this respect, the play disposes with that inconsistency - it makes the riddle itself more transparent and reworks the situation to make the riddle its accurate representation.
This is one aspect we might look into in the session - the play's "smoothing" of various "narrative bumps" in the original plot.
Another aspect that could also be relevant here is the play's portrayal of the female characters in general.
In reply to First post

Re: week 8: Pericles, Prince of Tyre

by Emma Marešová -
Shakespeare’s Gower is an external figure. He functions as a storyteller, the impression is that he is in control of what does and does not happen in the play. He refers to the play as “our story” (Act 5, Chorus), “our play” (Act 5, Epilogue). The Gower figure here is a theatrical device, as opposed to the Confessio’s more nuanced moral complexity. In my opinion, Shakespeare’s Gower provides a more straightforward rendition of the events of book VIII of the Confessio. Gower, known for his lessons in morality, appears as a figure of authority retelling a tale drawing on some historical past. Gower was a 14th century poet; Pericles was written in the early 17th century. The use of Gower as a chorus figure acknowledges the play’s source material as well as providing it with an archaic edge, drawing on established literary tradition, and Gower’s own ethos.
In Pericles, Gower’s steering mostly aligns with the play’s overarching structure. His emphasis on morality justifies the events of the play: Pericles reunites with his family and those who are morally impure have been punished. Gower’s moral guidance in the Confessio, however, is, once again, more nuanced. The text encourages the reader to draw their own conclusions rather than acting as a unifying voice of what is right and what is not, like the Gower in Pericles.
In reply to Emma Marešová

Re: week 8: Pericles, Prince of Tyre

by Helena Znojemská -
I wonder about others' impressions of the nuanced moral complexity/Guidance in the Confessio - here, if anybody wishes, and in the session (I'll definitely ask you to explain more fully). I'd say the play's ending corresponds quite closely to the narrator's comment on Apollonius' story in CA (ll. 1993-2008), the difference being that the play's Gower outlines his moral in greater detail and more explicitly. Another thing is that such a conclusion may strike us as inept in the play, and if it does, what kind of sense we make of it.
In reply to First post

Re: week 8: Pericles, Prince of Tyre

by Martina Mrázová -
I was reminded of Chaucer’s dreamer (persona) of Parliament of Fowls when reading Gower’s narration in Pericles. Gower addressed the readers or rather listeners of the play, “What now ensues, to the judgment of your eye / I give my cause, who best I can justify”, and establishes his own position with them. In Gower’s version (if Gower was the author) , he would be addressing courts, therefore nobility, to whom he had to act submissively, for this (in my opinion) he is depicted as a sort of obedient servant, which is only as clever as the nobility needs him: “…accept my rhymes, And that to hear and old man sing / May to your wishes pleasure bring,” (12-14), he even excuses himself to the readers: “Pardon old Gower–this ’longs the text”(40). This reminded me of the dreamer in Parliament, through which Chaucer can address the courts in an obedient fashion. He cannot from a position of superiority educate nobility of love but must do so from a submissive position.
Just as Gower (and the dreamer) is subservient, so are most of the characters in Pericles. The play explores the merits of obedience to a superior (noble or king etc.), concluding that submission is only as good as the master. Shakespeare is not proclaiming obedience to a king to be somehow wrong (as that is one of the pillars of romance) but through the depiction of Antiochus, his daughter and Thaliard, proclaims that obedience has to be justified. To kill for a master is not necessarily wrong if it is for defence (or other such cause), but killing to hide a sin, must be wrong: “We hate the Prince / Of Tyre, and thou must kill him. It fits thee not / To ask the reason why: because we bid it”(163-5). Then there is the justified obedience, which, simply put, is one to a good moral superior. But there is also the obedience to God and Nature which created one: “together in the earth, / From whence we had our being and our birth” (121-122). Subservience is then a multi-layered system, in which all are obedient to an entity(ies).
In reply to Martina Mrázová

Re: week 8: Pericles, Prince of Tyre

by Helena Znojemská -
I have to say I see perhaps greater affinity between "narrator-as-Amans" in the Confessio and the narrator-persona in Chaucer, both claiming a somewhat problematic relationship with the whole "Loves lawe" business, commenting on the discourse of Love from apparently marginal position.
I'm glad you noted the attention given to issues of kingship, governance and the working of society in general in Pericles; some of the more conspicuous changes to the inherited plot are made to explore this (the role of Helicanus). Whether "subservience" is the key word here might be a matter for class discussion.