243

G.W. SmithCheney, USA

NAMES AND REFERENCE IN SHAKESPEARE’S

MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR

G.W. Smith. Names and Reference in Shakespeare’s Merry Wives of Windsor

Shakespeare’s “Merry Wives of Windsor” is about true love and its antithesis. This paper will describe various associative possibilities of a cluster of symbolically related references, such as the names Falstaff, Ford, and Brooke, as well as other references to human (Bardolf, Peto, etc.) and inanimate objects (Order of the Garter, Garter Inn) in the play. The plot of the comedy and the history of coining the names for it show both meanings evoked by references and specific changes in power and influence of Shakespeare’s time. The paper will illustrate a semiotic approach advocated in “Theoretical Foundations of Literary Onomastics” in The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming.

Keywords: iconic, indexical, and symbolic signs, immediate referent, secondary referent.

1 PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to use Shakespeare’s Merry Wives of

Windsor (hereafter MWW; all references are to G. Melchiori’s Arden edi-tion) as an illustration of name meanings recently described in “Theo-retical Foundations of Literary Onomastics” (The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming, 2016). As found in the First Folio, MWW was prob-ably the combination of a festive masque written in early 1597 and rewrit-ten later as a domestic comedy for the popular stage. It is the only play in which Shakespeare uses a contemporary setting in England, and this set-ting is reinforced by references to characters in his earlier history plays, by multiple meanings of principal names, and especially by satiric refer-ences to contemporary people and events. In short, my hope is 1) to de-scribe how symbolic meaning is typically evoked by multiple references of signs, and therefore of names, 2) to analyze the multiple references of principal character names to show their social context and satiric intent, and 3) to show how the symbolism of names in MWW reflect its implicit thematic development of marital fidelity.

244

2 The indexical function of namesSemiotic theory, for which I find the writings of C. S. Pierce most

helpful, provides a clear and useful structure for the understanding of symbolic meaning. Pierce describes three basic types of reference, iconic (which has minimal relevance here), indexical, and symbolic. The refer-ences of names are commonly thought of as indexical, in which a sign is interpreted as designating its referent in a simple one-to-one relationship, much as one’s finger might point to an object. For example, my family name is Smith, but that name, as a sign, says nothing about me insofar as it is interpreted just as a simple, fixed designation of me as the referent. It has no lexical value if it is seen only as a label to designate me among a group of people, and that is the way my name, or any name, is commonly interpreted, even though the referent itself may have many contextual as-sociations by which it is identified.

3 Symbolic meaningSymbolic meaning arises when a sign evokes two or more indexical

referents in the mind of an interpreter. Regarding the example of my fam-ily name, we may hypothesize that the name Smith originally referred to two things: 1) one of my ancestors, and 2) his occupation. When the name was actually used to refer to my ancestor (which I shall call the immedi-ate referent), it also evoked a reference to the occupation (which I shall call the secondary referent). In referring to my ancestor, the meaning was symbolic insofar as the sign evoked qualities/attributes that were presum-ably also shared with the occupation.

Of course, the symbolic sharing of qualities is only partial in the mind of each individual interpreter, and it is the attributes of the second-ary referent that are more clearly carried over in terms of meaning to the immediate referent (much as M. Black, 38-47, has described meaning of the vehicle in a metaphor is carried over to the tenor). Thus, the presumed “meaning” of a name is usually discussed, if at all, in terms of the second-ary referent. However, both referents, my ancestor and the occupation, were made more meaningful than one thing referred to by the sign inter-preted as a single indexical reference, i.e., as a simple label. The sharing of qualities may be illustrated in a simple diagram:

245

For each sign, every interpreter will envision slightly different qualities/attributes among the shared qualities of the referents because of differences among each individual’s personal experience regarding the referents and the cerebral imprints of words and images.

4 Themes and references in literatureSymbolic meaning is a very imperfect mechanism for understanding

things, but it is the way in which our minds store and sort many disparate cognitive images, indeed vast amounts of information, into associative categories. It is an imperfect and often outlandish reflection of reality, because the human mind can associate any sign with a great number of referents or entities. Of course, the contextual associations create, and are in turn governed by, linguistic rules (morphological, syntactical, and semantic).

Literary themes are a linking of images and a reflection of symbolic thinking. Any name in literature will have symbolic meaning insofar as it

246

has more than one indexical referent, and it may thereby reflect a thematic interpretation of that literature insofar as it parallels other associations. That is to say, any name in literature will have greater importance insofar as it is seen to have relevance to other symbolic references. To the extent that a work of literature has a unified meaning, we should expect that its names evoke thematically related references, such as the names Falstaff, Ford, and Brooke in MWW. In fact, a literary theme may be described as a cluster of symbolically related references.

5 The theme of loveAccording to legend, MWW was written as a response to Queen

Elizabeth’s request to show Falstaff in love, and love is certainly an important theme of this play, as it is in most comedies. However, the success of “true” love is not nearly as well integrated in the plot of this play as it is in most comedies. That is to say, the “true” lovers, Fenton and Anne Page, do not evolve in their love and do not plan their evasion of her parents (the “comic blocks”) over a period of time. They triumph in their love with a last minute trick, taking advantage of her parents’ shameful schemes to have Anne whisked away to a loveless marriage. She runs away instead with Fenton, but her “offence is holy” (5.5.219) because it presumably leads to a faithful marriage, avoiding the “thousand irreligious cursed hours / Which forced marriage would have brought upon her” (5.5.223-224).

6 Falstaff as the antithesis of “true” loveThe dramatic focus of this play is actually on the antithesis of

“true love,” specifically on Falstaff’s larcenous lasciviousness, on the fraudulence of his knightly title, and on the ironic symbolism of his lodging at the Garter Inn. Complementing Falstaff’s mercenary courtship of the truly respectable wives of Windsor are Ford’s “shameful” suspicions of his wife, Alice. The desires of Anne’s parents (George and Margaret Page) that she marry for money (the wealthy Abraham Slender or Dr. Caius) despite her own feelings for Fenton provides a traditional comic plot, typically emphasizing the importance of “true love.” However, most action of the play, by far, displays Fallstaff’s fortune hunting, his repeated assignations with Alice, and Ford’s corresponding fears of his wife’s infidelity. The names of these two principal characters, along with references to Shakespeare’s previous plays, reflect recent events and people of the time, giving the names symbolic meaning and making MWW more satiric than comic.

247

7 A brief history of the Falstaff nameFalstaff is the center of attention throughout MWW. He was a

loquacious and interesting rogue in Shakespeare’s Henry 4 plays, but here he is a scheming yet easily traduced seducer. When he first appears in 1H4, the word Old is used as the speech prefix, and Hal refers to him as “my old lad of the castle” (1.2.41; references to Shakespeare’s history plays are to The Riverside Shakespeare). Thus, scholars commonly assume that Shakespeare originally used the name of Sir John Oldcastle as an historical and secondary reference for this character. The actual, historical Oldcastle, also known as Lord Cobham, had been a leading Lollard “executed for heresy in 1417” (Baker 885). Shakespeare probably had a negative view of the Lollards, but in Elizabethan times Oldcastle was viewed by many Protestants as an early martyr.

8 A contemporary referent and a little more historyMore importantly, an Oldcastle descendant was William Brooke, the

current Lord Cobham in 1596 and friend of Lord Burghley, the influential adviser to the Queen (Palmer 32). It seems that William Brooke objected to the disreputable portrayal of his ancestor. For this reason, Shakespeare apparently changed the name Oldcastle to Falstaff and makes a special point of disassociating his character from the Cobham lineage in the epilogue of 2H4: “Oldcastle died [a] martyr, and this is not the man” (32). Going back to his much earlier play, 1H6, and to his historical sources, Shakespeare found a general Fastolf who had escaped the battle of Patay in which John Talbot had been killed. Talbot was commonly viewed as a tragic English hero and was lionized by Shakespeare in 1H6. Fastolf, by escaping from Patay, was viewed by historians, and by Shakespeare in 1H6, as a coward. Thus, his name could not have been a better substitute for the Oldcastle name, or his action a more fitting secondary referent to suggest the dishonor of the character on stage. It also becomes a vehicle for puns and additional secondary referents.

9 Meaning and spellingIn his brief mention of General Fastolf in 1H6, Shakspeare plays

with the meaning of the name by changing the spelling of Fastolf, found in Shakespeare’s history books, to Falstaff. The second syllable may then refer in a lexical sense to the staff for holding a military flag or banner, and the added “l” in the first syllable can refer to the fall of that emblem of military command and honor. At the same time, the name Falstaff may be easily interpreted as a pun for False-staff, referring to someone who

248

bears that emblem of honor without justification. The altered spelling in 1H6 is a brief quip, a lexical equivalent deriving its meaning from the presumed act of cowardice as a secondary referent and to the dramatic character as the immediate referent. However, in 1H4 that brief symbolic reference becomes a thematic cluster of images describing Falstaff’s cowardice in the Gads Hill robbery, his feigned death at Shrewsbury, and his outrageous “catechism” on honor, calling it “a mere scutcheon” (1H4, 5.1.140). The imagery is extensive throughout the Henry 4 plays.

10 From thievery to extortionIn MWW, the lexical value of Falstaff’s name also suggests his

failures in romance. His first appearance in this play shows Falstaff very worried about his finances, just as in the Henry 4 plays. However, the fruits of petty thievery, on which Falstaff has previously relied, now seem insufficient; so he devises a new plan – to seduce Mistresses Ford and Page in order to extort their money. “Falstaff in love” is thus presented as the story of an ignoble fortune hunter, one who is totally interested in money and planning to subvert marital loyalty and debase the very essence of “true love.” As in the Gads Hill robbery in 1H4, Falstaff concocts a plan that is easily thwarted. Mistresses Ford and Page compare his insipid and identical love letters, are outraged by his shameless duplicity, and conspire to “lead him on” (2.1.85) through a series of assignations, the purpose of which is to punish him with indignities and real pain.

11 The extension of meaningThey plan the last assignation as a public humiliation for Falstaff,

culminating with the children dancing around him, pinching him, burning him with candles, and singing, “Fie on sinful fantasy, / Fie on lust and luxury” (5.5.93-94). Falstaff begins “to perceive that I am made an ass” (5.5.119) and laments it is “enough to be the decay of lust” (5.5.143). Because his failure is foreshadowed throughout the play, the phallic symbolism of Falstaff’s name is also clear. The second syllable is a phallic metaphor, and the first syllable refers to the comic futility of his sexual fantasies, reinforced, in the end, by his own reference to “the decay of lust.” Thus, Falstaff’s name has multiple references – to the character on the stage as the immediate referent, to a knighthood without honor, and finally to his enfeebled masculinity. The references to his ineptitude and degeneracy are many, and the meaning is richly symbolic.

249

12 Familiar names and their referentsThere also appear to be specific referents outside the play. Shakespeare

coined Falstaff’s name in response to political pressure exerted by Sir William Brooke, a descendent of Sir John Oldcastle, and Shakespeare’s audience would have known the name because the epilogue of 2H4 would have been a repeated reminder. The repeated staging of 2H4 would have also evoked potential references to several other name changes that MWW echoes as a sequel. These changes include the names of characters (besides Falstaff) and actors from the Henry 4 plays (e.g., Bardolph, Pistol, and Quickly) that would reinforce memories, references, and meaning for the audiences. When Shakespeare was forced to change Oldcastle to Falstaff, he also changed the names Rossill to Bardolph and Harvey to Peto to avoid explicit references to other powerful nobles (i.e., William Russell, Earl of Bedford, and Sir William Harvey, respectively). Bardolph reappears in this play much as he was in the Henry 4 plays, as a red-faced drunkard, an incompetent pickpocket, and a drain on Falstaff’s finances. His physical descriptions show the reappearance of the same actor with the same name evoking the same negative associations – a Falstaff crony whose name was originally Rossill. The repetition of the minor characters would remind Shakespeare’s audience of the political context in which Shakespeare was forced to make the name changes in 1596-1597.

13 An allusion to Harvey and the Countess of SouthamptonThe name Peto does not reappear in MWW, but the editor of the

Arden edition argues persuasively (Melchiori 122) that the same actor played Fenton here. Their words and character are similar, and the justification given by Fenton for wooing the wealthy Anne Page would have closely paralleled the reasons William Harvey apparently gave in wooing Mary Wriothesley, the wealthy Countess of Southampton. Mary wanted very much to marry Harvey, but her son and others opposed her marriage and accused Harvey of being a mere fortune hunter (Palmer 236). Shakespeare, who had been supported by the Countess during a closure of the theaters (1592-1594), was often supportive of her interests and presents a sympathetic view here of Fenton’s (and therefore of Harvey’s) love interest. Thus, the reappearance of actors from the Henry 4 plays, in addition to name changes, might also remind the audience of the previous name changes and of the political intervention by Sir William Brooke precipitating those changes.

250

14 Ford as BrookeThus, Sir William Brooke may have won a brief skirmish with

Shakespeare when 1H4 was first produced (c. 1596) but lost the war. He had forced the deletion of the Oldcastle name from the Henry 4 plays, and thereby the creation of Falstaff. However, Brooke’s own name appears prominently in MWW, both as an immediate reference to a jealous character in disguise and also as a secondary reference to befouled water. It is the name Ford uses in disguise to pursue his absurd jealousy. Pistol and Nim warn the husbands of Falstaff’s plans. Page expresses confidence in his wife’s fidelity, but Ford is alarmed and decides to test his wife’s fidelity by helping Falstaff pursue her seduction. He presents himself as a Master Brooke with a present for Falstaff, “a morning’s draught of sack” (2.2.138-139), to which Falstaff responds, “Such brooks are welcome to me, that o’erflows such liquor” (2.2.143-144). Thus, Falstaff’s plans have led to Ford assuming the Brooke name.

15 The befoulment of Ford and FalstaffUnwittingly, Falstaff tells “Master Brooke” (Ford in disguise) of his

assignation with Mistress Ford, and so when he arrives for his expected tryst, Ford returns home with officers to make an arrest. Falstaff barely escapes in a basket of soiled linens and is dumped into a dirty brook entering the Thames river. It is a fetid indignity, and the names Brooke and Ford become symbolically linked. When Mistress Ford sends Falstaff a note, he exclaims, “I have had ford enough: I was thrown into the ford, I have my belly full of ford” (3.5.34-35). The theme of befoulment is then repeated at the end of the second assignation. Falstaff escapes this time disguised as “my maid’s aunt of Brentford” (4.2.161), but Ford thinks he must be hidden again in the basket of filthy linen and rummages through the excreta to the utter dismay of others. The shame is self-inflicted and much deserved, as Shallow observes, “Master Ford, this wrongs you” (4.2.145-146).

16 Sir William Brooke as a secondary referentFord is less besmeared than Falstaff, but the similarity of their

indignities draws a thematic parallel between their schemes of jealousy and seduction. Both are dishonorable forms of love. When the character named Ford is in his most jealous state of mind, he is also the immediate referent of the name Brooke. As a pun, the brook wherein the linens are washed is a secondary referent of the Brooke name. However, the most important secondary referent of the Brooke name is Sir William Brooke, whose meddling inspired the Falstaff name and the gaggle of names and

251

characters borrowed from the Henry 4 plays. Thus, the Brooke name suggests a cluster of negative images, and Shakespeare appears to have used it here to satirize the simple-minded nobleman. To play on words, we might say that Shakespeare has used ‘Ford’ to cross a ‘Brooke’.

17 The disgrace of Lord CobhamIf MWW is a bit satirical of Sir William Brooke, one might ask why

the references in this play were not also suppressed. Part of the answer could be that Sir William died in 1597 and that his son and successor, Henry Brooke, wished to avoid any public confirmation of himself or of his father being a secondary referent – a mistake his father had made in objecting to the Oldcastle name. Another possibility is that the play was not in its present form until 1603 or after. In that summer Sir Henry and his brother George were arrested for having conspired to place Arbella Stuart on the throne instead of James 1. George was executed and Henry sent to the Tower for the rest of his life. Sir Henry had been elected to the Order of the Garter in 1599 but was later expelled from that chivalric order, an action that was unusual and socially significant. The time was ripe for a little satire, and Shakespeare had some reasons of his own..

18 The Order of the Garter as satiric ironyReferences to the Order of the Garter are central to the satirical

themes in MWW. The final scene includes a masque-like celebration and a speech by the “Fairy Queen” that quotes the famous motto of the Order. “Honi soit qui mal y pense,” which means “Evil to him who thinks evil of it” (Melchiori 281). It speaks to the virtuous conduct of a knight, not to his prowess of any sort. Use of the motto functions as an immediate referent that is clearly satiric because it describes the pain and embarrassment Falstaff deserves. The dances and taunts in the final scene are in fact an anti-masque insofar as they are not a celebration of someone’s installation, but an exposure and ridicule of Falstaff’s dishonorable intentions.

19 References to the Garter InnThe Garter Inn is where Falstaff resides and alludes to both the Order

of the Garter and to knightly status as secondary referents. It would also allude to the fact that Falstaff’s namesake, General Fastolf, like Sir Henry Brooke, had also been formally expelled from the Order of the Garter and stripped of his knighthood. Thus, the “public humiliation” orchestrated by the merry wives, Margaret Page and Alice Ford, serves as a symbolic expulsion of Falstaff from his knightly title.

252

20 Horse thievesThe ridicule of Falstaff and, by implication, of William Brooke are

the most salient satirical threads in MWW. However, the satirical thrust of the play may be seen in minor characters as well, most clearly perhaps in a brief plot thread in Act 4 about three German nobles. The Host of the Garter Inn (unnamed throughout the play) has given them lodging and loaned them horses. When Bardolph tells him they have stolen his horses, the Host stands in disblief, “They are gone but to meet the Duke . . . Germans are honest men” (4.5.67-68), but Evans disabuses him, they are “Cozen-Garmombles” who have also “cozened all the hosts of Readings, of Maidenhead, of Colebrook, of horses and money” (73-74). Then Caius bursts in to say, “you make grand preparation for a Duke de Jarmany. By my trot, der is no Duke that the court is know to come” (82-84).

21 The Garter festival of 1597The secondary referent of the “grand preparation” was almost

certainly the Garter festival held at Whitehall Palace on April 23, 1597, and the secondary referent of the unnamed Host of the Garter Inn was almost certainly Sir George Carey, Lord Hunsdon and patron of the Shakespeare’s acting company. Lord Hunsdon was inducted at this Garter festival and most probably served as its host with the help of his theatrical friends, as he and they did on many courtly occasions.

22 The meaning of “Garmombles”The secondary reference of “the Duke” was the German Duke of

Württemberg. He had visited England as Frederick, Count Mömpelgard, in 1592 and assiduously pursued his election to England’s chivalric Order. The Duke’s name, Mömpelgard, appears to be a secondary referent of Evans’ reference to “Garmombles” as a lexical compound of German + Mömpelgard + noble. By the time Mömpelgard’s induction was approved and the ceremonies were arranged for 1597, he had been made a duke, didn’t need the honor, didn’t attend, and never even acknowledged the invitation. Obviously, the invitation had not been honestly sought, and the English nobility felt swindled of time and money, just as the Host of the Garter Inn feels in Act 4. Thus, the verbal echoes seem clear, and the knavery of the German Duke fits the theme of schemes and trickery running throughout this play.