What do you think?
Rate this book
The Merry Wives of Windsor
This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery.
134 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1597
About the author
William Shakespeare
20.5k books44.6k followersWilliam Shakespeare was an English playwright, poet, and actor. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted.
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 953 reviews
August 8, 2019
Okay, I finished it. After all these years, the only Shakespeare play I could never get interested in is finally completed. I read every word of it, and I am sure I'll never read it again.
It's not that bad, really--if you like bedroom farces punched up with dialect humor, second-rate puns and third-rate malapropisms. I found it pretty dreary, and the humor of Falstaff--which I looked forward to as a small refreshing pool in the middle of all this sand--is a pale shadow of his wit in Henry IV.
June 3, 2017
This is Sir John Falstaff’s play; it was a chance for Shakespeare to pad out one of his most popular characters and give him another comic moment. And he failed completely.
So when Shakespeare wrote this he focused on this one character, and as a result the rest of the play suffered. The cast were all mere plot devices, a means for Falstaff to arrive at his destination (the dénouement) in the woods wearing his antlers. They don’t seem to have the same level of personality or depth that is often attributed to Shakespeare’s characters. The wives of Windsor are rather absent for most of the play, surprisingly. Falstaff’s wooing of them had very little stage time. We see the letter he sent to them both, but little else. As you can probably tell, I didn’t really this. I have very few good things to say about it if any.
Scholars argue that there is much of Shakespeare in this play. Indeed, things such as his application for a coat of arms in his personal life, his desire to move up the social ladder and his love of Ovid’s works. But this is also true for many of Shakespeare’s plays. For example, the rape scene in Titus Andronicus is lifted form Ovid. Not a bad thing of course, but I don’t think it’s enough to make this play worthy of note. Shakespeare was an entertainer, and this is one of his least entertaining plays. The fact that he adapted parts of Ovid doesn’t change this.
It’s also one of his least popular plays, and I really can see why. The plot was rather dull and most of it was in prose rather than verse, so it wasn’t overly pleasant to read either. This isn’t a play I will read again in the future.
Next on my Shakespeare list is A Midsummer’s Night Dream. I’m looking forward to reading it, hopefully it will make me forget about this one!
So when Shakespeare wrote this he focused on this one character, and as a result the rest of the play suffered. The cast were all mere plot devices, a means for Falstaff to arrive at his destination (the dénouement) in the woods wearing his antlers. They don’t seem to have the same level of personality or depth that is often attributed to Shakespeare’s characters. The wives of Windsor are rather absent for most of the play, surprisingly. Falstaff’s wooing of them had very little stage time. We see the letter he sent to them both, but little else. As you can probably tell, I didn’t really this. I have very few good things to say about it if any.
Scholars argue that there is much of Shakespeare in this play. Indeed, things such as his application for a coat of arms in his personal life, his desire to move up the social ladder and his love of Ovid’s works. But this is also true for many of Shakespeare’s plays. For example, the rape scene in Titus Andronicus is lifted form Ovid. Not a bad thing of course, but I don’t think it’s enough to make this play worthy of note. Shakespeare was an entertainer, and this is one of his least entertaining plays. The fact that he adapted parts of Ovid doesn’t change this.
It’s also one of his least popular plays, and I really can see why. The plot was rather dull and most of it was in prose rather than verse, so it wasn’t overly pleasant to read either. This isn’t a play I will read again in the future.
Next on my Shakespeare list is A Midsummer’s Night Dream. I’m looking forward to reading it, hopefully it will make me forget about this one!
May 9, 2018
"...I would have sworn his disposition would have gone to the truth of his words; but they do no more adhere and keep place together than the Hundredth Psalm to the tune of 'Greensleeves.'"... "I will find you twenty lascivious turtles ere one chaste man." (Mistress Ford and Mistress Page compare notes at Location 349)
"Thou art a Castalion King Urinal!" (Location 565. Ooh, way to alienate customers from your Garter Inn, "Mine Host"!)
"Disarm them, and let them question; let them keep their limbs whole and hack our English." (Host of the Garter Inn at Location 633)
"I think, if your husbands were dead, you two would marry." "Be sure of that--two other husbands." (Mr. Ford and Mistress Page at Location 664)
You may have a very merry time indeed if you choose to read this!
"Thou art a Castalion King Urinal!" (Location 565. Ooh, way to alienate customers from your Garter Inn, "Mine Host"!)
"Disarm them, and let them question; let them keep their limbs whole and hack our English." (Host of the Garter Inn at Location 633)
"I think, if your husbands were dead, you two would marry." "Be sure of that--two other husbands." (Mr. Ford and Mistress Page at Location 664)
You may have a very merry time indeed if you choose to read this!
September 11, 2022
YouTube kanalımda Shakespeare'in hayatı, mutlaka okunması gereken kitapları ve kronolojik okuma sırası hakkında bilgi edinebilirsiniz: https://youtu.be/rGxh2RVjmNU
42 tane kitabı yayımlanmış bir yazarı kronolojik okumak... Zor iş. Peki neden Shakespeare'in kronolojik olarak okunması gerektiğini öneriyorum?
Shakespeare'in oyunlarını tarihsel oyunlar, komedyalar ve tragedyalar olarak üçe ayırabiliriz. Bu konuda hiçbir sıkıntı yok. Zaten bütün kitaplarını okumayı tamamladığımda kitaplarının hepsini okumak isteyenler ya da sadece en önemlilerini okumak isteyenler için çok geniş bir okuma rehberi paylaşacağım.
İşin çetrefilli yönü, Windsor'un Şen Kadınlar kitabını yazmadan önce Kral IV. Henry-1 ve 2 adlı oyunlarını yazmış olması. Yani, bir okurun Windsor'un Şen Kadınları kitabındaki Falstaff karakterinin nereden geldiğini anlayabilmesi ve yanına aldığı adamlarının kimler olduklarını anlayabilmesi için Kral IV. Henry-1 ve 2 oyunlarını okuması lazım önce. Ayrıca şimdiye kadar okuduğum 18 adet Shakespeare kitabının içerisindeki en yaratıcı, en özgün karakterlerden birinin Falstaff olduğunu söyleyebilirim, Romeo ve Juliet oyunundaki karakterlerden bile daha iyi tasarıma sahip olduğunu düşünüyorum Falstaff'ın.
Shakespeare okumalarımda dikkatimi çeken şey şu oldu... Erken dönem eserlerinde nispeten asimetrik ve dengesiz karakter tasarımları varken olgunluk dönemine yaklaşıldığında uyum, simetri, perspektif ve denge gibi Rönesans dönemine has özellikleri kitaplara katmaya başlıyor sanki. Aşkın Emeği Boşuna kitabındaki üçlü erkek ve üçlü kadın gruplarının dengeli bir bütün şeklinde hareket ediyor olmasını, Windsor'un Şen Kadınları kitabında Falstaff'ın üç kere salak gibi kandırılmasında, Windsor'un üç şen kadınının Falstaff'ı üç kere kandırmasında ve ayrıca üç erkeğin de Page adlı kadını paylaşamamazlığında görüyoruz.
Shakespeare neden kronolojik okunmalı diye sordum ya başta... Mesela ilk eserlerinden biri olan ve "Cadalozu Evcilleştirmek" olarak çevrilmesi gerekirken Hırçın Kız olarak yumuşatılan kitabında tamamen bir kadının bir erkek otoritesi altına girip uysallaşmasını görmüştüm. Yani Dostoyevski sürgünden önceki erken dönem eserlerinde nasıl ki erkekleri zayıf, kadınları güçlü ve sürgünden sonraki eserlerinde de erkekleri nispeten güçlü, kadınları zayıf kurgulamışsa, Shakespeare'de bunun tam tersini görüyoruz. İlk başlarda kadınlarla tamamen dalga geçilen ve aşağılanan kurgular varken ilerleyen zamanlara doğru kadınlar hakimiyeti eline almaya başlıyor, hatta bu kitapta bildiğin Falstaff'ı şamar oğlanına çeviriyorlar.
Sanki Boccaccio'nun Decameron kitabındaki öykülerde zeki kadınların eşlerine oyunlar oynamaları gibi Shakespeare'in kitaplarında kurgulanan kadınların zekası da zamanla doğru orantılı olarak artıyor. İşte bu yüzden, böyle büyük yazarların kronolojik olarak okunması gerektiğine inanıyorum. Bu şekilde Mimar Sinan'ın çıraklık-kalfalık-ustalık eserleri gibi bir yazarın da emekleme, yürüme ve koşma zamanlarına tanık olabiliyoruz. Bir okur olarak biz de o yazarla birlikte emekliyoruz, yürüyoruz ve koşuyoruz.
Ben şu an Shakespeare ile emeklemeyi öğrendim ve hatta kitaplarında kullandığı Yunan mitolojisi sahnelerinin evlerinde cereyan yapmasın diye astıkları örtülerin üzerine işlenen desenlerden geldiğini Park Honan'ın Shakespeare: Bir Yaşam kitabından öğrendim. Hatta bu incelemede bahsettiğim kitapların yazımları sırasında aynı bizim şu an koronavirüs salgınında bulunmamız gibi adam da veba salgını zamanında bulunuyor ve bütün tiyatrolar kapalı. Fakat tiyatrolar oynanmak için yazılır, yani tiyatronun kitapta kalmasının hiçbir anlamı yoktur.
Aslında tiyatrolar seyircinin dikkatini çekebilmek ve onun gözünü olabildiğince boyayabilmek için ekstra ilgi çekici yapılmaya çalışılır. Antik Çağ'da Platon'un görüşlerine göre de estetik algısı seyirden bağımsız ve nesne üzerinden toplanmış, nesnenin kendi içinde var olduğu bir olgu iken, zamanla Aquinolu Thomas'ın "Güzel, kendisinden dolayı ve seyirde hoşlanılan şeydir” demesiyle işler kızışmaya başlıyor. Daha sonrasında Kant'ın "Beğeni yargısı seyirseldir." cümlesiyle birlikte ortalık Norm Ender ve Ben Fero'nun rap şarkıları gibi diss atmasına dönüyor. Fakat sonra Hegel gelip Antik Çağ ile şimdiki çağın görüşlerini birleştiriyor ve "Seyreden ile sanat yapıtı içinde sesini duyuran tin arasında bir sentez meydana gelir." deyip olayı tatlıya bağlıyor. Peki bunları niye dedim?
Shakespeare'in oyunlarında da seyreden ile sanat yapıtı içinde sesini duyuran tin arasında bir sentez meydana geldiği kadar onun oyunlarından keyif alıyorum. Mesela benim şimdiye kadar en çok sevdiğim kitabı olan Titus Andronicus bence çok etkileyici ve vahşet dolu bir oyun. Bu oyun seyreden ile sanat yapıtı arasında oldukça etkili bir tin meydana getirmişti benim için. İşte... Aynı şekilde şu an incelemesini yaptığım kitabın içerisindeki Falstaff karakteri için de Hegel'in estetik felsefesinde seyreden özne ile seyredilen nesne arasındaki uzlaşımını görüyorum.
42 tane kitabı yayımlanmış bir yazarı kronolojik okumak... Zor iş. Peki neden Shakespeare'in kronolojik olarak okunması gerektiğini öneriyorum?
Shakespeare'in oyunlarını tarihsel oyunlar, komedyalar ve tragedyalar olarak üçe ayırabiliriz. Bu konuda hiçbir sıkıntı yok. Zaten bütün kitaplarını okumayı tamamladığımda kitaplarının hepsini okumak isteyenler ya da sadece en önemlilerini okumak isteyenler için çok geniş bir okuma rehberi paylaşacağım.
İşin çetrefilli yönü, Windsor'un Şen Kadınlar kitabını yazmadan önce Kral IV. Henry-1 ve 2 adlı oyunlarını yazmış olması. Yani, bir okurun Windsor'un Şen Kadınları kitabındaki Falstaff karakterinin nereden geldiğini anlayabilmesi ve yanına aldığı adamlarının kimler olduklarını anlayabilmesi için Kral IV. Henry-1 ve 2 oyunlarını okuması lazım önce. Ayrıca şimdiye kadar okuduğum 18 adet Shakespeare kitabının içerisindeki en yaratıcı, en özgün karakterlerden birinin Falstaff olduğunu söyleyebilirim, Romeo ve Juliet oyunundaki karakterlerden bile daha iyi tasarıma sahip olduğunu düşünüyorum Falstaff'ın.
Shakespeare okumalarımda dikkatimi çeken şey şu oldu... Erken dönem eserlerinde nispeten asimetrik ve dengesiz karakter tasarımları varken olgunluk dönemine yaklaşıldığında uyum, simetri, perspektif ve denge gibi Rönesans dönemine has özellikleri kitaplara katmaya başlıyor sanki. Aşkın Emeği Boşuna kitabındaki üçlü erkek ve üçlü kadın gruplarının dengeli bir bütün şeklinde hareket ediyor olmasını, Windsor'un Şen Kadınları kitabında Falstaff'ın üç kere salak gibi kandırılmasında, Windsor'un üç şen kadınının Falstaff'ı üç kere kandırmasında ve ayrıca üç erkeğin de Page adlı kadını paylaşamamazlığında görüyoruz.
Shakespeare neden kronolojik okunmalı diye sordum ya başta... Mesela ilk eserlerinden biri olan ve "Cadalozu Evcilleştirmek" olarak çevrilmesi gerekirken Hırçın Kız olarak yumuşatılan kitabında tamamen bir kadının bir erkek otoritesi altına girip uysallaşmasını görmüştüm. Yani Dostoyevski sürgünden önceki erken dönem eserlerinde nasıl ki erkekleri zayıf, kadınları güçlü ve sürgünden sonraki eserlerinde de erkekleri nispeten güçlü, kadınları zayıf kurgulamışsa, Shakespeare'de bunun tam tersini görüyoruz. İlk başlarda kadınlarla tamamen dalga geçilen ve aşağılanan kurgular varken ilerleyen zamanlara doğru kadınlar hakimiyeti eline almaya başlıyor, hatta bu kitapta bildiğin Falstaff'ı şamar oğlanına çeviriyorlar.
Sanki Boccaccio'nun Decameron kitabındaki öykülerde zeki kadınların eşlerine oyunlar oynamaları gibi Shakespeare'in kitaplarında kurgulanan kadınların zekası da zamanla doğru orantılı olarak artıyor. İşte bu yüzden, böyle büyük yazarların kronolojik olarak okunması gerektiğine inanıyorum. Bu şekilde Mimar Sinan'ın çıraklık-kalfalık-ustalık eserleri gibi bir yazarın da emekleme, yürüme ve koşma zamanlarına tanık olabiliyoruz. Bir okur olarak biz de o yazarla birlikte emekliyoruz, yürüyoruz ve koşuyoruz.
Ben şu an Shakespeare ile emeklemeyi öğrendim ve hatta kitaplarında kullandığı Yunan mitolojisi sahnelerinin evlerinde cereyan yapmasın diye astıkları örtülerin üzerine işlenen desenlerden geldiğini Park Honan'ın Shakespeare: Bir Yaşam kitabından öğrendim. Hatta bu incelemede bahsettiğim kitapların yazımları sırasında aynı bizim şu an koronavirüs salgınında bulunmamız gibi adam da veba salgını zamanında bulunuyor ve bütün tiyatrolar kapalı. Fakat tiyatrolar oynanmak için yazılır, yani tiyatronun kitapta kalmasının hiçbir anlamı yoktur.
Aslında tiyatrolar seyircinin dikkatini çekebilmek ve onun gözünü olabildiğince boyayabilmek için ekstra ilgi çekici yapılmaya çalışılır. Antik Çağ'da Platon'un görüşlerine göre de estetik algısı seyirden bağımsız ve nesne üzerinden toplanmış, nesnenin kendi içinde var olduğu bir olgu iken, zamanla Aquinolu Thomas'ın "Güzel, kendisinden dolayı ve seyirde hoşlanılan şeydir” demesiyle işler kızışmaya başlıyor. Daha sonrasında Kant'ın "Beğeni yargısı seyirseldir." cümlesiyle birlikte ortalık Norm Ender ve Ben Fero'nun rap şarkıları gibi diss atmasına dönüyor. Fakat sonra Hegel gelip Antik Çağ ile şimdiki çağın görüşlerini birleştiriyor ve "Seyreden ile sanat yapıtı içinde sesini duyuran tin arasında bir sentez meydana gelir." deyip olayı tatlıya bağlıyor. Peki bunları niye dedim?
Shakespeare'in oyunlarında da seyreden ile sanat yapıtı içinde sesini duyuran tin arasında bir sentez meydana geldiği kadar onun oyunlarından keyif alıyorum. Mesela benim şimdiye kadar en çok sevdiğim kitabı olan Titus Andronicus bence çok etkileyici ve vahşet dolu bir oyun. Bu oyun seyreden ile sanat yapıtı arasında oldukça etkili bir tin meydana getirmişti benim için. İşte... Aynı şekilde şu an incelemesini yaptığım kitabın içerisindeki Falstaff karakteri için de Hegel'in estetik felsefesinde seyreden özne ile seyredilen nesne arasındaki uzlaşımını görüyorum.
June 9, 2018
Great audio version of one of Shakespeare's more playful plays.
July 15, 2019
This is my new favorite Shakespeare play and I have zero regrets. Everyone is kind of hating on this play because they feel like Shakespeare mistreated one of his “best” creations (yes, I’m talking about Falstaff here) but I literally couldn’t care less. I only read the Henry’s after reading The Merry Wives of Windsor so I wasn’t priorly familiar with Falstaff and therefore just took him for what he was: a disgusting old man who thinks that women ain’t shit and that he can literally abuse them for their money without them knowing and realising that he’s playing a foul game. Well, guess what sweety, you signed that deal without the actual wives of Windsor. These ladies kick so much ass and take no one’s shit, I love that they gave Falstaff these lessons, he deserved being called out for all of his bullshit.
Just to make sure you understand why that excites me so much. Falstaff is such a hoe, stating that “briefly, I do mean to make love to Ford’s wife. I spy entertainment in her, […] she gives the leer of invitation”, “They shall be my East and West Indies, and I will trade to them both” and other macho bullshit. I mean, if he thinks he can handle these women… I’m just over here sipping my tea, rooting for them to let him know that there are already enough fuckboys in Windsor and these ladies have none of his shit. They proceed on luring him to different places to see who can embarrass him the most: one time, he is forced to hide in a basket full of dirty and smelly clothes and they have the basket being dumped in the river; another time, they get him to disguise himself as “the witch of Brentfordt” and he has to walk home in women’s clothes. Falstaff, being the hopeless macho that he is, is convinced that the wives are just “playing hard to get” and so he continues his pursuit. Oh boy, you couldn’t be more wrong.
And the awesome thing about this is that Mistress Quickly, the housekeeper, just plays along. Falstaff thinks he can trust her but she is privy of the ladies’ schemings and loves to play her part in them. At one point, I was scared that the story would turn to shit because Mister Ford is very jealous and suspicious of his wife (and he starts thinking that she has a love affair with Falstaff) and I worried that we would get another of the Bard’s famous cases of miscommunication BUT NO, they all came through and discussed everything openly, so that all of the husbands were in on the scheme, together they devised one last track to humiliate Falstaff in front of the whole town. It is awesome.
Meanwhile, three different men are trying to win the hand of Page's daughter, Anne Page. Mistress Page would like her daughter to marry Doctor Caius, a French physician, whereas the girl's father would like her to marry Master Slender. Anne herself is in love with Master Fenton, but Page had previously rejected Fenton as a suitor due to his having squandered his considerable fortune on high-class living. It is quite funny how this frame story is absolutely peripheral in comparison to the jokes the wives play on Falstaff. Nonetheless, I liked the Anne Page-subplot and how everything was cleared up in the end.
Shakespeare’s comedies are never overly logical and I am 100% just here for the funsies. The play doesn’t have a serious message (although I appreciate the fact that we had some boss ass ladies kicking ass and standing up for themselves and their dignity). It’s all just merriment and I loved every second of it. I don’t think I’ve ever read a Shakespeare play that was more accessible and easy to understand. The last line of the play is so damn hilarious, read the play for yourself to get its context and witness its brilliancy. I’ll wait. ;)
“Well, I will find you twenty lascivious turtles ere one chaste man.”The play begins with Falstaff writing an identical letter to Mistress Page and Mistress Ford, basically just switching out their names (Falstaff is really out here doing the bare minimum…), telling them of his “profound” love and that he will be there for them “by day or night” (alrighty). Both women are absolutely disgusted with his assumption that they’ll cheat on their respective husbands and, of course, tell one another about it. Up to this day, I cannot fathom how Falstaff didn’t foresee this? The two are best friends, they were bound to tell each other about his creepy letter. But well, jokes on you, Falstaff; he payed dearly for this mistake. Both women decide to play along and make Falstaff’s life hell [insert here my longest yeah boy ever] and humiliate him on every possible occasion.
Just to make sure you understand why that excites me so much. Falstaff is such a hoe, stating that “briefly, I do mean to make love to Ford’s wife. I spy entertainment in her, […] she gives the leer of invitation”, “They shall be my East and West Indies, and I will trade to them both” and other macho bullshit. I mean, if he thinks he can handle these women… I’m just over here sipping my tea, rooting for them to let him know that there are already enough fuckboys in Windsor and these ladies have none of his shit. They proceed on luring him to different places to see who can embarrass him the most: one time, he is forced to hide in a basket full of dirty and smelly clothes and they have the basket being dumped in the river; another time, they get him to disguise himself as “the witch of Brentfordt” and he has to walk home in women’s clothes. Falstaff, being the hopeless macho that he is, is convinced that the wives are just “playing hard to get” and so he continues his pursuit. Oh boy, you couldn’t be more wrong.
And the awesome thing about this is that Mistress Quickly, the housekeeper, just plays along. Falstaff thinks he can trust her but she is privy of the ladies’ schemings and loves to play her part in them. At one point, I was scared that the story would turn to shit because Mister Ford is very jealous and suspicious of his wife (and he starts thinking that she has a love affair with Falstaff) and I worried that we would get another of the Bard’s famous cases of miscommunication BUT NO, they all came through and discussed everything openly, so that all of the husbands were in on the scheme, together they devised one last track to humiliate Falstaff in front of the whole town. It is awesome.
Meanwhile, three different men are trying to win the hand of Page's daughter, Anne Page. Mistress Page would like her daughter to marry Doctor Caius, a French physician, whereas the girl's father would like her to marry Master Slender. Anne herself is in love with Master Fenton, but Page had previously rejected Fenton as a suitor due to his having squandered his considerable fortune on high-class living. It is quite funny how this frame story is absolutely peripheral in comparison to the jokes the wives play on Falstaff. Nonetheless, I liked the Anne Page-subplot and how everything was cleared up in the end.
Shakespeare’s comedies are never overly logical and I am 100% just here for the funsies. The play doesn’t have a serious message (although I appreciate the fact that we had some boss ass ladies kicking ass and standing up for themselves and their dignity). It’s all just merriment and I loved every second of it. I don’t think I’ve ever read a Shakespeare play that was more accessible and easy to understand. The last line of the play is so damn hilarious, read the play for yourself to get its context and witness its brilliancy. I’ll wait. ;)
July 6, 2017
"We have some salt of our youth in us."
-- William Shakespeare, Merry Wives of Windsor, Act II, Scene 2
Meh. Not my favorite. There were a few good lines and obviously any book with Sir. John Falstaff deserves an extra star (so ⋆⋆ + Falstaff = ⋆⋆⋆). As a whole I didn't like it. It felt cheap and a bit of a throw-away for a mature William Shakespeare, but I'm sure it played well for the dirty and unwashed. And, OK, to be honest there were some pretty fantastic lines. But mostly it felt like it belonged snuggled in a irreverent threesome next to The Comedy of Errors and The Taming of the Shrew. For me it was the Elizabethan equivalent of an Adam Sandler play. Obviously, THAT says as much about ME and my preferences as it does about these plays, but dear God let the pudgy lust and the dirty laundry melt off me tonight.
Best lines:
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience, and the King's English." (Act I, Scene 4)
“Why, then the world ’s mine oyster,
Which I with sword will open.” (Act II, Scene 2)
“I assure thee: setting the attractions of my
good parts aside I have no other charms.” (Act II, Scene 2)
"You may know by my size, that I have a kind of alacrity in sinking. " (Act III, Scene 5)
“I think the devil will not have me damned, lest the oil that's in me should set hell on fire.” (Act V, Scene 5)
-- William Shakespeare, Merry Wives of Windsor, Act II, Scene 2
Meh. Not my favorite. There were a few good lines and obviously any book with Sir. John Falstaff deserves an extra star (so ⋆⋆ + Falstaff = ⋆⋆⋆). As a whole I didn't like it. It felt cheap and a bit of a throw-away for a mature William Shakespeare, but I'm sure it played well for the dirty and unwashed. And, OK, to be honest there were some pretty fantastic lines. But mostly it felt like it belonged snuggled in a irreverent threesome next to The Comedy of Errors and The Taming of the Shrew. For me it was the Elizabethan equivalent of an Adam Sandler play. Obviously, THAT says as much about ME and my preferences as it does about these plays, but dear God let the pudgy lust and the dirty laundry melt off me tonight.
Best lines:
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience, and the King's English." (Act I, Scene 4)
“Why, then the world ’s mine oyster,
Which I with sword will open.” (Act II, Scene 2)
“I assure thee: setting the attractions of my
good parts aside I have no other charms.” (Act II, Scene 2)
"You may know by my size, that I have a kind of alacrity in sinking. " (Act III, Scene 5)
“I think the devil will not have me damned, lest the oil that's in me should set hell on fire.” (Act V, Scene 5)
September 2, 2019
From Litsy: Glad I have now read this, but it‘s not a favorite Shakespeare on the page. Seems this one is dependent on the performance and if the actors can pull it off, it‘s probably great fun and Fallstaff strikes again, or is brought down again. But hacking through the text is a mixed experience.
(Took me longer to read than normal partly because the notes were more extensive and partly because the ebook format was a mess, requiring a lot of clicking to flip between the notes and the text. Fortunately I rented it, instead of buying. So it only cost $2)
-----------------------------------------------
41. The Merry Wives of Windsor by William Shakespeare
editor David Crane
originally performed: probably 1597, maybe 1601
this edition published: 1997, updated 2010
format: 173 page Kindle ebook from The New Cambridge Shakespeare series
acquired: borrowed from amazon while reading
read: Aug 4-31
time reading: 17 hr 10 min, 6.0 min/page
rating: 3
June 11, 2019
“A man may be too confident.”
"The Merry Wives of Windsor" is generally loathed by scholars, and loved by audiences. The reason is not hard to detect. It is a non-serious (at least on the surface) and very funny play. Shakespeare wrote low comedy farce. GASP!
First off, the 3 star rating means as compared to other works of Shakespeare. I don't feel it fair to compare him to other writers. For the other writer's sake!
"Merry Wives" is a fast paced romp that would be much better to see than to read. The first act of this play frustrated me as reading no Shakespeare has done before. The play is his only comedy set in (Shakespeare's) modern day, and in England. As a result it abounds with archaic English colloquialisms and regionalisms that mean nothing to the modern American reader. You will have to look at the explanatory notes while reading this play. The reader's frustration will be added to by the inclusion of a French character, complete with accent, a Welsh parson, also with accent, and a housekeeper (Mistress Quickly) who speaks with malaprops and misunderstandings most of the time.
If you can get over that hurdle (and on this second reading of the play I did) you will find the play picks up steam and humor in the last three acts, and there are some truly comic, and often vulgar, moments. The groundlings must have howled with delight at this play.
Many critics hate this play because they say the Falstaff of "Merry Wives' is a shadow of the character Shakespeare created for the Henry Four plays. I beg to differ. Falstaff’s language and robustness is all there. The story that surrounds him here is of a lesser “significance”. But I guess my question is, so what? Shakespeare created Falstaff and he can use him however he sees fit. To me it seems a minor quibble, and I am not sure I understand the passion it engenders in some people.
On this reading I also fell in love with what a great ensemble piece this play is. There really is no lead, and lots of roles for good actors to play with.
Take "The Merry Wives of Windsor" for what it is, a lighthearted farce, meant as a diversion for its viewers, and leave all the academic baggage at home.
The new RSC Modern Library editions of the plays of Shakespeare are a quality trade paperback edition of the works of the Bard. “The Merry Wives of Windsor” in the series contains a decent Introduction by Jonathan Bate, and reading it will add to your experience of the play.
This edition includes an essay on the performance history of the piece, and interviews with directors (Bill Alexander & Rachel Kavanaugh) as well as an interview with actor Simon Callow, who has played Falstaff. It will be of special interest to those who enjoy exploring the multitude of interpretations Shakespeare lends itself to. The Modern Library edition also includes a scene-by-scene analysis, which can help point out an image or symbol you might have missed. The edition also includes a nice “Further Readings” list specifically for this play.
Frankly, all of the extra essays allow you to dive into the world of the play, and it is all included in one text.
The RSC Modern Library editions are a nice new trade paperback with worthwhile extras. They are a good addition to the editions of Shakespeare out there. These and the Pelican Shakespeare are my two favorites.
"The Merry Wives of Windsor" is generally loathed by scholars, and loved by audiences. The reason is not hard to detect. It is a non-serious (at least on the surface) and very funny play. Shakespeare wrote low comedy farce. GASP!
First off, the 3 star rating means as compared to other works of Shakespeare. I don't feel it fair to compare him to other writers. For the other writer's sake!
"Merry Wives" is a fast paced romp that would be much better to see than to read. The first act of this play frustrated me as reading no Shakespeare has done before. The play is his only comedy set in (Shakespeare's) modern day, and in England. As a result it abounds with archaic English colloquialisms and regionalisms that mean nothing to the modern American reader. You will have to look at the explanatory notes while reading this play. The reader's frustration will be added to by the inclusion of a French character, complete with accent, a Welsh parson, also with accent, and a housekeeper (Mistress Quickly) who speaks with malaprops and misunderstandings most of the time.
If you can get over that hurdle (and on this second reading of the play I did) you will find the play picks up steam and humor in the last three acts, and there are some truly comic, and often vulgar, moments. The groundlings must have howled with delight at this play.
Many critics hate this play because they say the Falstaff of "Merry Wives' is a shadow of the character Shakespeare created for the Henry Four plays. I beg to differ. Falstaff’s language and robustness is all there. The story that surrounds him here is of a lesser “significance”. But I guess my question is, so what? Shakespeare created Falstaff and he can use him however he sees fit. To me it seems a minor quibble, and I am not sure I understand the passion it engenders in some people.
On this reading I also fell in love with what a great ensemble piece this play is. There really is no lead, and lots of roles for good actors to play with.
Take "The Merry Wives of Windsor" for what it is, a lighthearted farce, meant as a diversion for its viewers, and leave all the academic baggage at home.
The new RSC Modern Library editions of the plays of Shakespeare are a quality trade paperback edition of the works of the Bard. “The Merry Wives of Windsor” in the series contains a decent Introduction by Jonathan Bate, and reading it will add to your experience of the play.
This edition includes an essay on the performance history of the piece, and interviews with directors (Bill Alexander & Rachel Kavanaugh) as well as an interview with actor Simon Callow, who has played Falstaff. It will be of special interest to those who enjoy exploring the multitude of interpretations Shakespeare lends itself to. The Modern Library edition also includes a scene-by-scene analysis, which can help point out an image or symbol you might have missed. The edition also includes a nice “Further Readings” list specifically for this play.
Frankly, all of the extra essays allow you to dive into the world of the play, and it is all included in one text.
The RSC Modern Library editions are a nice new trade paperback with worthwhile extras. They are a good addition to the editions of Shakespeare out there. These and the Pelican Shakespeare are my two favorites.
June 13, 2020
Попадала съм на твърдения, че Шекспировите творби поизчерпват възможните литературни сюжети и са венец на художественото писане; че в общи линии не си заслужава да четеш нищо друго след Шекспир; че ако не си чел Шекспир, си нищ духом и е спорно какво изобщо си чел… Не ще стигам чак дотам да заявя, че по-добра литература няма, защото е (без)крайно претенциозно, пък и смятам, че ако за нещо на света изобщо има истина, то тя не е черно-бяла. Ще кажа само, че съм средностатистически човек, живеещ над 400 години след Шекспир, който го чете с искрено удоволствие и е благодарен за светулките въображение, които са успели да прелетят през мрака на столетията. Друго няма.
December 17, 2017
This is one of Shakespeare's bawdy plays and it is quite silly but it is also highly entertaining. I love the way Shakespeare has different classes of people use words differently often leading to misunderstanding.
The story swirls around one of Shakespeare's favorite characters-Falstaff. Falstaff is a well-developed character who consistently misunderstands himself.
While this is a jolly comedy it is probably not one for the family since its plot centers on adultery or at least the idea that it might occur.
The story swirls around one of Shakespeare's favorite characters-Falstaff. Falstaff is a well-developed character who consistently misunderstands himself.
While this is a jolly comedy it is probably not one for the family since its plot centers on adultery or at least the idea that it might occur.
April 26, 2023
Me encanto, me hizo reír mucho.
Video reseña completa en:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CrLRrb...
Video reseña completa en:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CrLRrb...
September 6, 2020
I find Falstaff insufferable in the Henries so I did not have high hopes for this but it was VERY cute and endearingly stupid.
May 7, 2021
I’ve been trying to fit in a couple Shakespeare plays per year, one comedy and one tragedy. This year’s comedy selection was The Merry Wives of Windsor. A not-very-noble knight tries to hit on two different married ladies at the same time by sending them identical love letters. The wives have a merry time teaching him a lesson. There are other aspects to the story, but that’s the one most relevant to the title.
Looking at it somewhat objectively, this may be one of the better Shakespeare comedies I’ve read. It made a reasonable amount of sense, as opposed to some of the others I’ve read where you have to completely abandon logic to follow the story. I liked that the wives were faithful, although it sounds like there wasn’t much about the knight that might have tempted them even if they were inclined to be unfaithful. I appreciated their annoyance at being thought to be fair game just because they liked to laugh and engage in friendly conversation.
While reading it though, I just didn’t enjoy it that much. Even though there is a lot of humor in the story, it just felt kind of tedious to me. This story was different from the others I've read, but it still felt like more of the same. The one time I did laugh was toward the end .
My rating is on the low side, but this is because I rate books based on my enjoyment level, not based on an objective analysis. This is more useful for me to look back on in the future; I want to keep track of my actual reactions to a book, not what I think I should have thought of it. In any case, I think I’ve become burnt out on the Shakespeare comedies. I’ll probably skip them for the next year or two. I haven’t read any of his histories yet, so I’ll try to fit one of those in next year.
Looking at it somewhat objectively, this may be one of the better Shakespeare comedies I’ve read. It made a reasonable amount of sense, as opposed to some of the others I’ve read where you have to completely abandon logic to follow the story. I liked that the wives were faithful, although it sounds like there wasn’t much about the knight that might have tempted them even if they were inclined to be unfaithful. I appreciated their annoyance at being thought to be fair game just because they liked to laugh and engage in friendly conversation.
While reading it though, I just didn’t enjoy it that much. Even though there is a lot of humor in the story, it just felt kind of tedious to me. This story was different from the others I've read, but it still felt like more of the same. The one time I did laugh was toward the end .
My rating is on the low side, but this is because I rate books based on my enjoyment level, not based on an objective analysis. This is more useful for me to look back on in the future; I want to keep track of my actual reactions to a book, not what I think I should have thought of it. In any case, I think I’ve become burnt out on the Shakespeare comedies. I’ll probably skip them for the next year or two. I haven’t read any of his histories yet, so I’ll try to fit one of those in next year.
Read
September 16, 2020بالمال نستطيع شراء الأراضي، أما النساء فإن القدر يوزعهن كما يشاء.
April 14, 2023
Tradition has it that The Merry Wives of Windsor was written at the request of Queen Elizabeth I. After watching Henry IV Part I, she asked Shakespeare to write a play depicting Falstaff in love. Shakespeare didn't really manage a Falstaff in love play unless we take it to mean Falstaff in love with money. The Merry Wives of Windsor is a Shakespearean comedy that I actually found funny. With two sensible married women that decide to play pranks on Falstaff of the 'Dubious Honour and Suspect Morals' to teach him a lesson, this play is a cut above the other comedies where the women are all silly and the audience has to suspend disbelief.
October 16, 2014
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 14, 2019
O powerful love,
that in some respects makes a beast a man, in
some other a man a beast!
-Falstaff, Act 5, Scene 5
Never have I finished a Shakespeare play so conflicted about whether or not I liked it.
Merry Wives has a reputation as one of Will's poorer efforts, and I (like most people, I suspect) am more in thrall to popular opinion than I'd like to admit. People en masse are often (usually?) stupid, but when folks who are supposed to know what they're talking about reach a consensus I think it's pretty natural to assume they're right. So right off the bat I was primed not to like this play, and even posted a snarky status update on here as soon as I'd cracked the spine about how un-jazzed I was to be reading it.
And yeah, it's definitely not a masterpiece. Our old pal Falstaff is here, but, as so many other reviewers note, he's not really all here in the same bombastic, scene-stealing, larger-than-life way he appears in the Henry IV plays. His role is smaller, his Falstaffian speeches more reined-in, his line count significantly reduced. Unlike those other reviewers, though, I didn't really see that as a problem in itself. Don't get me wrong, Falstaff is a great character, but after two plays chock full of him (one of them, I'd argue, to its detriment), I found this toned-down version a nice reprieve. It's Falstaff Lite™, a refreshing snack instead of a four-course meal with several rounds of drinks afterwards.
In addition to Falstaff we have all the usual Shakespearean comedy tropes—disguises and gender-bending and love triangles, oh my!—but I thought the execution was pretty competent, at least compared to the other early comedies I've read so far. The characters are silly and mostly two-dimensional (we get a stereotypical Welshman and a stereotypical Frenchman, complete with phonetic dialogue), but they at least stand out from one another and showcase a sector of contemporary English life—the provincial middle class, from which Will himself hailed—that never gets much attention in the Bard's other work. Add to that the fact that the resourceful women consistently get the better of their idiot men, and you've got—well, not Shakespeare’s most stunning display by any means, but certainly not his worst either.
But after all that, Wives still left me feeling lukewarm. Truth be told, I'm starting to fear Shakespeare's comedies just might not be my bag. Of the seven I've read so far, only A Midsummer Night's Dream and Love's Labour's Lost have inspired more than a three-star rating from me, and I always find myself kind of taking a deep breath—here we go again—before I start one. But probably I'm getting ahead of myself. I've got Much Ado About Nothing up next, which is supposed to be one of the best, and Twelfth Night and As You Like It and a few others later on, so there's still plenty of time to be won over. (Or, you know, maybe I should just stop listening to what everyone else says and let my experience be what it is.)
So in conclusion... I don't really know? I didn't adore Merry Wives, but it wasn't the trainwreck I was expecting either. Shakespeare could and did do a lot better, but plenty of other writers have only ever written worse.
that in some respects makes a beast a man, in
some other a man a beast!
-Falstaff, Act 5, Scene 5
Never have I finished a Shakespeare play so conflicted about whether or not I liked it.
Merry Wives has a reputation as one of Will's poorer efforts, and I (like most people, I suspect) am more in thrall to popular opinion than I'd like to admit. People en masse are often (usually?) stupid, but when folks who are supposed to know what they're talking about reach a consensus I think it's pretty natural to assume they're right. So right off the bat I was primed not to like this play, and even posted a snarky status update on here as soon as I'd cracked the spine about how un-jazzed I was to be reading it.
And yeah, it's definitely not a masterpiece. Our old pal Falstaff is here, but, as so many other reviewers note, he's not really all here in the same bombastic, scene-stealing, larger-than-life way he appears in the Henry IV plays. His role is smaller, his Falstaffian speeches more reined-in, his line count significantly reduced. Unlike those other reviewers, though, I didn't really see that as a problem in itself. Don't get me wrong, Falstaff is a great character, but after two plays chock full of him (one of them, I'd argue, to its detriment), I found this toned-down version a nice reprieve. It's Falstaff Lite™, a refreshing snack instead of a four-course meal with several rounds of drinks afterwards.
In addition to Falstaff we have all the usual Shakespearean comedy tropes—disguises and gender-bending and love triangles, oh my!—but I thought the execution was pretty competent, at least compared to the other early comedies I've read so far. The characters are silly and mostly two-dimensional (we get a stereotypical Welshman and a stereotypical Frenchman, complete with phonetic dialogue), but they at least stand out from one another and showcase a sector of contemporary English life—the provincial middle class, from which Will himself hailed—that never gets much attention in the Bard's other work. Add to that the fact that the resourceful women consistently get the better of their idiot men, and you've got—well, not Shakespeare’s most stunning display by any means, but certainly not his worst either.
But after all that, Wives still left me feeling lukewarm. Truth be told, I'm starting to fear Shakespeare's comedies just might not be my bag. Of the seven I've read so far, only A Midsummer Night's Dream and Love's Labour's Lost have inspired more than a three-star rating from me, and I always find myself kind of taking a deep breath—here we go again—before I start one. But probably I'm getting ahead of myself. I've got Much Ado About Nothing up next, which is supposed to be one of the best, and Twelfth Night and As You Like It and a few others later on, so there's still plenty of time to be won over. (Or, you know, maybe I should just stop listening to what everyone else says and let my experience be what it is.)
So in conclusion... I don't really know? I didn't adore Merry Wives, but it wasn't the trainwreck I was expecting either. Shakespeare could and did do a lot better, but plenty of other writers have only ever written worse.
August 15, 2024
Поки єдиний твір, який мені більш менш сподобався, але зняла бал за одну фразу щодо жінок, а так на диво нормально читалось. Сподобалось, що жінки вирішили провчити одного залицяльника, який хотів зустрічатися з ними обома, і якому абсолютно начхати, що вони одружені, а ще ота історія з однаковими листами, де було змінено тільки ім'я це такий крінж.
June 30, 2024
Siempre he sido una entusiasta de Shakespeare, pero esta obra se ha elevado como mi favorita hasta ahora, y con razón. Es una hilaridad absoluta y, además, increíblemente inteligente. Aunque no se encuentre entre las obras más reconocidas del genio literario, merece ser celebrada por su brillantez.
Desde que descubrí esta obra hace unos años, siendo mi tercera incursión en el mundo de Shakespeare, capturó mi corazón de inmediato. A medida que continuaba explorando más de sus trabajos, seguía considerándola como la mejor. Sin embargo, al escuchar a expertos en Shakespeare calificar esta obra como una de sus más débiles, comencé a dudar de mi propio juicio. A pesar de ello, seguí leyendo otras obras del autor y, una y otra vez, regresaba a esta obra con el mismo entusiasmo. Decidí entonces releerla, y una vez más, me dejó sorprendida.
La trama se desenvuelve en Windsor, donde las esposas engañadas deciden jugarle varias bromas a Falstaff, quien intentó seducirlas. En medio de esto, Anne Page, una joven de familia adinerada, desafía la elección matrimonial de sus padres, siguiendo su propio corazón. La ambigüedad y el humor se entrelazan aún más con los debatidos sentimientos de Fenton hacia Anne.
Es comprensible por qué algunos consideran esta obra como una de las más débiles de Shakespeare. La trama puede no ser tan emocionante y la escritura no alcanza la profundidad poética de otras obras, como las metáforas vibrantes de "Romeo y Julieta". Aunque no puedo comparar la representación de Falstaff aquí con su encarnación en "Enrique IV", lo encontré como un personaje bastante entretenido y divertido. A pesar de que los otros personajes pueden no ser tan icónicos como algunos de los de Shakespeare, encontré un gran placer en seguir sus historias. Todos están bien diferenciados y contribuyen significativamente a la trama, lo cual es notable dado el amplio elenco presentado.
Lo que más me atrajo de esta obra fue la ingeniosa manera en que las "esposas alegres" se burlan del arrogante y tonto Sir John Falstaff. A diferencia de otros chistes en las obras de Shakespeare, estos realmente me hicieron reír. Además, aprecio los temas feministas subyacentes explorados a través de los personajes de Mistress Ford y Page. Su determinación para tomar el control de sus vidas y relaciones es algo con lo que puedo identificarme y creo que las coloca entre los personajes femeninos más fuertes de Shakespeare.
El diálogo es fresco y entretenido, aportando una sensación de realismo a toda la historia. La astucia de la señora Ford y la dinámica de su relación con su esposo son especialmente notables. Por otro lado, Anne desafía las expectativas sociales y sigue su propio camino, convirtiéndose en un personaje interesante y admirable.
En resumen, esta obra es verdaderamente excepcional. Aunque mi admiración por Shakespeare pueda parecer parcial, su genialidad brilla en esta comedia. Realmente recomendaría darle una oportunidad, te garantizo que te hará reír.
Desde que descubrí esta obra hace unos años, siendo mi tercera incursión en el mundo de Shakespeare, capturó mi corazón de inmediato. A medida que continuaba explorando más de sus trabajos, seguía considerándola como la mejor. Sin embargo, al escuchar a expertos en Shakespeare calificar esta obra como una de sus más débiles, comencé a dudar de mi propio juicio. A pesar de ello, seguí leyendo otras obras del autor y, una y otra vez, regresaba a esta obra con el mismo entusiasmo. Decidí entonces releerla, y una vez más, me dejó sorprendida.
La trama se desenvuelve en Windsor, donde las esposas engañadas deciden jugarle varias bromas a Falstaff, quien intentó seducirlas. En medio de esto, Anne Page, una joven de familia adinerada, desafía la elección matrimonial de sus padres, siguiendo su propio corazón. La ambigüedad y el humor se entrelazan aún más con los debatidos sentimientos de Fenton hacia Anne.
Es comprensible por qué algunos consideran esta obra como una de las más débiles de Shakespeare. La trama puede no ser tan emocionante y la escritura no alcanza la profundidad poética de otras obras, como las metáforas vibrantes de "Romeo y Julieta". Aunque no puedo comparar la representación de Falstaff aquí con su encarnación en "Enrique IV", lo encontré como un personaje bastante entretenido y divertido. A pesar de que los otros personajes pueden no ser tan icónicos como algunos de los de Shakespeare, encontré un gran placer en seguir sus historias. Todos están bien diferenciados y contribuyen significativamente a la trama, lo cual es notable dado el amplio elenco presentado.
Lo que más me atrajo de esta obra fue la ingeniosa manera en que las "esposas alegres" se burlan del arrogante y tonto Sir John Falstaff. A diferencia de otros chistes en las obras de Shakespeare, estos realmente me hicieron reír. Además, aprecio los temas feministas subyacentes explorados a través de los personajes de Mistress Ford y Page. Su determinación para tomar el control de sus vidas y relaciones es algo con lo que puedo identificarme y creo que las coloca entre los personajes femeninos más fuertes de Shakespeare.
El diálogo es fresco y entretenido, aportando una sensación de realismo a toda la historia. La astucia de la señora Ford y la dinámica de su relación con su esposo son especialmente notables. Por otro lado, Anne desafía las expectativas sociales y sigue su propio camino, convirtiéndose en un personaje interesante y admirable.
En resumen, esta obra es verdaderamente excepcional. Aunque mi admiración por Shakespeare pueda parecer parcial, su genialidad brilla en esta comedia. Realmente recomendaría darle una oportunidad, te garantizo que te hará reír.
February 29, 2016
As many other Shakespeare´s plays, The merry wives of Windsor didn´t disappoint me. I was really looking forward to read it and I can proudly say, it was worth it. The Shakespeare´s typical game with many storylines that all ended up really surprisingly (I mean like, if you knew, how it would end, Shakespeare still can make it curious) were here found too and spiced with as many interests as here could be. And that´s awesome, if we consider the fact, the bard had about fourteen days to write it.
Even I read this book in Czech, I especially loved the language jokes about the speech of Evans and Caius. And this also reminded me about the fact, that my native language has no problem with translation of idioms: there is not a melody in any language Czech can sing and play. :)
Even I read this book in Czech, I especially loved the language jokes about the speech of Evans and Caius. And this also reminded me about the fact, that my native language has no problem with translation of idioms: there is not a melody in any language Czech can sing and play. :)
August 4, 2021
"I think if your husbands were dead, you two would marry."
March 24, 2017
To tell the truth, I got into this play because of Hugh Evans. And my theater friends.
Basically what happened was—I was surfing the Shakespeare internet when suddenly I came across a page on how Shakespeare writes accents. There was one on Welsh accents, which intrigued me. After all, Fluellen (the Welsh soldier from Henry V) is quite possibly my favorite character in Shakespeare, and I’m pretty interested in Welsh culture, thanks to him. (And I played him when I was in Henry V!) However, I was under the impression that Fluellen and Glendower (and that one random Welsh soldier dude from Richard II) were the only Welsh people in Shakespeare. Turns out I was wrong—Sir Hugh Evans is a Welsh parson from Merry Wives. And, then to my utter astonishment, it turns out he has more lines than Fluellen or Glendower!
So of course I was very interested in finding out just who this Evans guy was. Originally I didn’t plan on reading the entire play—just looking through a couple summaries, maybe. However, the factor that fully convinced me was that some of my theater friends (who were in Henry V with me) were currently in a production of Merry Wives. I had a good conversation with them about it, as well as talking with some of my other Shakespeare-obsessed friends, and decided—this play sounds interesting; I’m gonna read it, why the hell not.
…Anyway, all that goes to show that I read the play (in three days actually), and quite thoroughly enjoyed it.
I feel like I should primarily address Evans, since he got me into this whole thing. He’s great. Arguably extraneous, but eh, I love him. He gets mocked for his accent and Welsh-ness a couple times, though, which is… unfortunate. Lots of references to stereotypically Welsh things, like cheese or flannels. Especially cheese. (also, perhaps he and Fluellen could be brothers?) My favorite scene of his is certainly the one where he’s quizzing William on Latin verb conjugations and Nell Quickly entirely misinterprets it… that was pretty hilarious. And he sings to himself when he’s scared?! Aww.
Also the best line in the entire play: “Heavens defend me from that Welsh fairy, lest he transform me to a piece of cheese!”
I feel like I’ve spent way too much time discussing Evans. He is in no way the most important character in the play. Here, let me speak to some of the others.
Mistess Ford & Page? The badass women Windsor deserves. 10/10 love these women. They take no shit from Falstaff nor their husbands, and are pretty much the driving forces of the play. Honestly, what more can I say? And Ford’s line about them is pretty great: "I think, if your husbands were dead, you two would marry.”
Even the play is named after them—they are the Merry Wives: "We'll leave a proof, by that which we will do, / Wives may be merry, and yet honest too: / We do not act that often jest and laugh; / 'Tis old, but true, still swine eat all the draff."
However, in all honesty, I think that Ford is the most interesting character in the play. At the beginning, he’s just kind of your standard jealous husband. It’s all fun and games. But then Falstaff calls him a cuckold about five times in one speech, and suddenly this happens…
"Would any man have thought this? See the hell of having a false woman! My bed shall be abused, my coffers ransacked, my reputation gnawn at … Terms! names! Amaimon sounds well; Lucifer, well; Barbason, well; yet they are devils' additions, the names of fiends: but cuckold! Wittol! —Cuckold! the devil himself hath not such a name. … I will rather trust a Fleming with my butter, Parson Hugh the Welshman with my cheese … than my wife with herself; then she plots, then she ruminates, then she devises…"
This soliloquy of Ford’s really struck me because it’s so intense. He’s essentially saying that being called a cuckold is worse than being called a devil: I would certainly liken it to some of Othello’s or Leontes’ speeches. Though of course, Ford is different from Othello or Leontes (or Claudio from Much Ado) because he actually has pretty good reason to suggest his wife is unfaithful. And yet… he’s actually a lot more humane about it? Yes, he has this intense speech (which really speaks to his anxieties)—but he doesn’t slander or kill *cough* Othello *cough* his wife. And he apologizes to her afterwards. Which is great!
Of course, since Merry Wives is a comedy, it doesn’t explore these darker themes as much as a play like Othello or Winter’s Tale would. However, I would still argue that there are elements of darkness in the play. One is the theme of cuckoldry. Another is the treatment of Falstaff.
For the most part, Falstaff’s humiliation is hilarious. He deserves a lot of it. The whole laundry-basket thing is fantastic. But… it seems to me that they almost go too far? “We cannot misuse him enough,” says Mistress Page. The last scene is pretty great, in my opinion, but still—they burn him with candles! I’m not sure how I feel about that! It seems to parallel the treatment of Malvolio in Twelfth Night, almost...
Some more thoughts!
- Poor Quickly, working for all those different people. Also, she’s not as badass in this play as she was in Henry IV—but, well.
- I wonder when this play is set, in regards to Henry IV? The only mention of characters in H4 looks to be this offhand line of Page’s regarding Fenton: "The gentleman is of no having: he kept company with the wild prince and Poins; he is of too high a region; he knows too much."
- I find it kind of hilarious that Slender and Caius ended up accidentally marrying boys.
- Re. Caius… wtf dude?? He is a little Too Obsessed with Anne Page. And then when he hears that Evans encouraged Slender to woo Anne, all of a sudden he’s like I WILL KILL YOU EVANS and it’s actually really intense and disturbing. Dude. Chill. Please. Evans deserves 0% of this and tbh neither does Anne nor Simple.
- I don’t really understand how Caius and Evans got revenge on the Host…? Did that ever happen? Was it connected to that random horse-stealing incident? idk.
- Re. the whole subplot with Anne Page and her suitors—I’m glad she got to marry who she wanted in the end! That was really great.
- There was so much horn imagery… obviously relating to cuckoldry, but still interesting.
- Most of the play is in prose! It was interesting to note the rare places where they switch to verse (most notably, when talking about magic, Herne the hunter, etc)
Bottom line? Merry Wives is a fun play. It is in no way as deep as some of Shakespeare’s other comedies—but hey, it’s a comedy. It’s fun. It’s got a good story. Lots of laughs. And even some little hints at a darker nature. Not for people unfamiliar with Shakespeare—but for those who are, I would recommend it!
Basically what happened was—I was surfing the Shakespeare internet when suddenly I came across a page on how Shakespeare writes accents. There was one on Welsh accents, which intrigued me. After all, Fluellen (the Welsh soldier from Henry V) is quite possibly my favorite character in Shakespeare, and I’m pretty interested in Welsh culture, thanks to him. (And I played him when I was in Henry V!) However, I was under the impression that Fluellen and Glendower (and that one random Welsh soldier dude from Richard II) were the only Welsh people in Shakespeare. Turns out I was wrong—Sir Hugh Evans is a Welsh parson from Merry Wives. And, then to my utter astonishment, it turns out he has more lines than Fluellen or Glendower!
So of course I was very interested in finding out just who this Evans guy was. Originally I didn’t plan on reading the entire play—just looking through a couple summaries, maybe. However, the factor that fully convinced me was that some of my theater friends (who were in Henry V with me) were currently in a production of Merry Wives. I had a good conversation with them about it, as well as talking with some of my other Shakespeare-obsessed friends, and decided—this play sounds interesting; I’m gonna read it, why the hell not.
…Anyway, all that goes to show that I read the play (in three days actually), and quite thoroughly enjoyed it.
I feel like I should primarily address Evans, since he got me into this whole thing. He’s great. Arguably extraneous, but eh, I love him. He gets mocked for his accent and Welsh-ness a couple times, though, which is… unfortunate. Lots of references to stereotypically Welsh things, like cheese or flannels. Especially cheese. (also, perhaps he and Fluellen could be brothers?) My favorite scene of his is certainly the one where he’s quizzing William on Latin verb conjugations and Nell Quickly entirely misinterprets it… that was pretty hilarious. And he sings to himself when he’s scared?! Aww.
Also the best line in the entire play: “Heavens defend me from that Welsh fairy, lest he transform me to a piece of cheese!”
I feel like I’ve spent way too much time discussing Evans. He is in no way the most important character in the play. Here, let me speak to some of the others.
Mistess Ford & Page? The badass women Windsor deserves. 10/10 love these women. They take no shit from Falstaff nor their husbands, and are pretty much the driving forces of the play. Honestly, what more can I say? And Ford’s line about them is pretty great: "I think, if your husbands were dead, you two would marry.”
Even the play is named after them—they are the Merry Wives: "We'll leave a proof, by that which we will do, / Wives may be merry, and yet honest too: / We do not act that often jest and laugh; / 'Tis old, but true, still swine eat all the draff."
However, in all honesty, I think that Ford is the most interesting character in the play. At the beginning, he’s just kind of your standard jealous husband. It’s all fun and games. But then Falstaff calls him a cuckold about five times in one speech, and suddenly this happens…
"Would any man have thought this? See the hell of having a false woman! My bed shall be abused, my coffers ransacked, my reputation gnawn at … Terms! names! Amaimon sounds well; Lucifer, well; Barbason, well; yet they are devils' additions, the names of fiends: but cuckold! Wittol! —Cuckold! the devil himself hath not such a name. … I will rather trust a Fleming with my butter, Parson Hugh the Welshman with my cheese … than my wife with herself; then she plots, then she ruminates, then she devises…"
This soliloquy of Ford’s really struck me because it’s so intense. He’s essentially saying that being called a cuckold is worse than being called a devil: I would certainly liken it to some of Othello’s or Leontes’ speeches. Though of course, Ford is different from Othello or Leontes (or Claudio from Much Ado) because he actually has pretty good reason to suggest his wife is unfaithful. And yet… he’s actually a lot more humane about it? Yes, he has this intense speech (which really speaks to his anxieties)—but he doesn’t slander or kill *cough* Othello *cough* his wife. And he apologizes to her afterwards. Which is great!
Of course, since Merry Wives is a comedy, it doesn’t explore these darker themes as much as a play like Othello or Winter’s Tale would. However, I would still argue that there are elements of darkness in the play. One is the theme of cuckoldry. Another is the treatment of Falstaff.
For the most part, Falstaff’s humiliation is hilarious. He deserves a lot of it. The whole laundry-basket thing is fantastic. But… it seems to me that they almost go too far? “We cannot misuse him enough,” says Mistress Page. The last scene is pretty great, in my opinion, but still—they burn him with candles! I’m not sure how I feel about that! It seems to parallel the treatment of Malvolio in Twelfth Night, almost...
Some more thoughts!
- Poor Quickly, working for all those different people. Also, she’s not as badass in this play as she was in Henry IV—but, well.
- I wonder when this play is set, in regards to Henry IV? The only mention of characters in H4 looks to be this offhand line of Page’s regarding Fenton: "The gentleman is of no having: he kept company with the wild prince and Poins; he is of too high a region; he knows too much."
- I find it kind of hilarious that Slender and Caius ended up accidentally marrying boys.
- Re. Caius… wtf dude?? He is a little Too Obsessed with Anne Page. And then when he hears that Evans encouraged Slender to woo Anne, all of a sudden he’s like I WILL KILL YOU EVANS and it’s actually really intense and disturbing. Dude. Chill. Please. Evans deserves 0% of this and tbh neither does Anne nor Simple.
- I don’t really understand how Caius and Evans got revenge on the Host…? Did that ever happen? Was it connected to that random horse-stealing incident? idk.
- Re. the whole subplot with Anne Page and her suitors—I’m glad she got to marry who she wanted in the end! That was really great.
- There was so much horn imagery… obviously relating to cuckoldry, but still interesting.
- Most of the play is in prose! It was interesting to note the rare places where they switch to verse (most notably, when talking about magic, Herne the hunter, etc)
Bottom line? Merry Wives is a fun play. It is in no way as deep as some of Shakespeare’s other comedies—but hey, it’s a comedy. It’s fun. It’s got a good story. Lots of laughs. And even some little hints at a darker nature. Not for people unfamiliar with Shakespeare—but for those who are, I would recommend it!
April 16, 2024
Probably the least inspired and enamouring of Shakespeare's comedies. Apparently Queen Elizabeth I asked him to write a play showing Falstaff in love and this is the result. In other words, it's a royal commission and you can sense the bard's heart isn't quite in it. The magnificently larger than life Falstaff in the two Henry IV plays is reduced to a caricature of his former self.
September 10, 2015
I read this to prep for seeing the play this week. I have never read or seen this play, and thought it wouldn't hurt to go in knowing the story.
The Folger Shakespeare Library editions are laid out nicely. Every page of the play has a facing page that explains the more inscrutable phrases. The introductory sections were brief but interesting, and there are recommendations for further reading in the back, along with an essay about the play.
If I ever feel the need to study before going out to enjoy another Shakespeare play, I would look for this format again.
The play itself was fun. I always choose comedies when I buy play tickets. Shakespeare comedies are always full of tricks and hijinks, and Merry Wives of Windsor is no exception. Stir in a couple of pranksters and dudes with funny accents, and we have ourselves a romp that should be great to see on stage.
The Folger Shakespeare Library editions are laid out nicely. Every page of the play has a facing page that explains the more inscrutable phrases. The introductory sections were brief but interesting, and there are recommendations for further reading in the back, along with an essay about the play.
If I ever feel the need to study before going out to enjoy another Shakespeare play, I would look for this format again.
The play itself was fun. I always choose comedies when I buy play tickets. Shakespeare comedies are always full of tricks and hijinks, and Merry Wives of Windsor is no exception. Stir in a couple of pranksters and dudes with funny accents, and we have ourselves a romp that should be great to see on stage.
April 11, 2017
The Merry Wives of Windsor stands out among Shakespeare's plays as the only one centered on middle- class people, as opposed to royalty and the ruling classes. Much like A Midsummer's Night's Dream, the final scene focuses on an encounter between the human players and the faerie realm. In Midsummer, the fairies are of the Royal type - Oberon and Titania - which corresponds with the Duke and Queen who are to be married, around which the other plots revolve; in MW, the fairies are of common trickster stock, being played by the middle class humans we have already met, and led by Herne the Hunter, a keeper of the forest - a goddish personage, yes, but one with a job.
Quite an Interesting contrast to some of the other plays, and enjoyable, if farcical.
Quite an Interesting contrast to some of the other plays, and enjoyable, if farcical.
November 24, 2021
"we'll leave a proof, by that which we will do
wives may be merry, and yet honest too."
i went into this expecting to dislike it, because i hate falstaff (who ended up being actually more tolerable here than in the henriad), but in fact i don't know that i have a single feeling about this play. beyond a vague sense of satisfaction that the girlbosses came out on top (and that their husbands' jealousies were proven wrong), and beyond the usual appreciation i have for shakespeare's use of language and thematic exploration, i am not sure i have even one emotion about this. i actually put it down mid-act-three and fully forgot i was reading it for a few days. (though, granted, november has been an insanely busy month for me.) anyway, fenton is a lesbian
June 14, 2020
Falstaff, who is not Falstaff, gets his comeuppance.
February 5, 2019
Evet, belki diğer eserleri kadar iyi gelmeyebilir fakat ben hem oyundaki karakterleri hem de ilerleyişi sevdim. Sadece son kısmının çok aceleye gelmiş olabileceğini düşünüyorum.
July 10, 2016
SCHOLARS, PROFESSORS, EXPERTS AND GENERALLY EVERYONE YOU SHOULD TRUST ABOUT SHAKESPEARE: The Merry Wives of Windsor is, clearly, one of Shakespeare's weakest plays, due to what we can only hope was rushed writing and little revision. The uninteresting characters stumble around what we can barely call a plot, with tired, forced humour and a poor parody of one of Shakespeare's finest comedic characters, John Falstaff, to polish off this disaster of a play from our great Bard.
ME: This play is awesome! One of my favourites of Shakespeare's works! When I read this for the first time a few years ago as my third Shakespeare play it instantly became my favourite and I've been saying as much even as I made my way through fourteen other (awesome) plays since then. However, constantly hearing people who actually know what they're talking about when it comes to Shakespeare using this play as an example of the not-so-great plays he wrote, I started doubting whether I should still trust the opinion of the unexperienced-Shakespeare-reader I was two years ago, and keep telling people this was my favourite. So, I reread it. And it was still amazing.
I can definitely see where a lot of people are coming from when they say this play is one of Shakespeare's weakest, as the plot isn't the most exciting and I'd compare the writing with the coarse language of the servants in Romeo and Juliet - with hardly any metaphorical observations on life or even just simple verse in sight (if any, actually). I can't comment on the representation of Falstaff in comparison to what he's like in Henry IV, which seems to be many people's main problem with this play, having never read those plays, but I found him an entertaining and funny enough character purely in this story. As for the other characters, they may not be Shakespeare's most iconic, but I thought they were entertaining to read about and everyone was very well distinguished, which I think is worth noting given the large cast we were presented with.
My favourite thing about this play is the skillful mockery of the arrogant and foolish character of Sir John Falstaff by the so-called 'merry wives', which unlike many other supposedly hilarious jokes involved in some of Shakespeare's plays, I actually found really funny. This was probably helped by the underlying feminist themes broached in Mistress Ford and Page's motivations, which I could definitely relate to, and I would honestly say they hold a position amongst Shakespeare's strongest female characters.
Another thing I especially like about this play is the Falstaff and Brooke scenes in the tavern. For me those few short scenes have a real atmosphere and are written exquisitely well, adding a lot to the play. Though I'll admit the way did feel pretty rushed and unsatisfactory, I really liked the overall ending to the play and this particular storyline probably says more about the position of women in that society than it does about Shakespeare's plotting ability, so it's not a huge drawback about the play for me.
I know this play has some flaws and it's not perfection, but out of all the plays I've read it's one of the ones that I've found most fun and entertaining to read, so I'd say it's definitely worth a try if you like Shakespeare, despite the heavy criticism it gets.
ME: This play is awesome! One of my favourites of Shakespeare's works! When I read this for the first time a few years ago as my third Shakespeare play it instantly became my favourite and I've been saying as much even as I made my way through fourteen other (awesome) plays since then. However, constantly hearing people who actually know what they're talking about when it comes to Shakespeare using this play as an example of the not-so-great plays he wrote, I started doubting whether I should still trust the opinion of the unexperienced-Shakespeare-reader I was two years ago, and keep telling people this was my favourite. So, I reread it. And it was still amazing.
I can definitely see where a lot of people are coming from when they say this play is one of Shakespeare's weakest, as the plot isn't the most exciting and I'd compare the writing with the coarse language of the servants in Romeo and Juliet - with hardly any metaphorical observations on life or even just simple verse in sight (if any, actually). I can't comment on the representation of Falstaff in comparison to what he's like in Henry IV, which seems to be many people's main problem with this play, having never read those plays, but I found him an entertaining and funny enough character purely in this story. As for the other characters, they may not be Shakespeare's most iconic, but I thought they were entertaining to read about and everyone was very well distinguished, which I think is worth noting given the large cast we were presented with.
My favourite thing about this play is the skillful mockery of the arrogant and foolish character of Sir John Falstaff by the so-called 'merry wives', which unlike many other supposedly hilarious jokes involved in some of Shakespeare's plays, I actually found really funny. This was probably helped by the underlying feminist themes broached in Mistress Ford and Page's motivations, which I could definitely relate to, and I would honestly say they hold a position amongst Shakespeare's strongest female characters.
Another thing I especially like about this play is the Falstaff and Brooke scenes in the tavern. For me those few short scenes have a real atmosphere and are written exquisitely well, adding a lot to the play. Though I'll admit the way did feel pretty rushed and unsatisfactory, I really liked the overall ending to the play and this particular storyline probably says more about the position of women in that society than it does about Shakespeare's plotting ability, so it's not a huge drawback about the play for me.
I know this play has some flaws and it's not perfection, but out of all the plays I've read it's one of the ones that I've found most fun and entertaining to read, so I'd say it's definitely worth a try if you like Shakespeare, despite the heavy criticism it gets.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 953 reviews