Talk:The Merry Wives of Windsor

Note

The book I'm reading has Love's Labours Lost and The Two Gentlemen of Verona in it as well as Merry Wives, and they are labeled "Shakespeare's early comedies". Should that be mentioned? Mike H 04:58, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

Ancient Pistol?

I'm just wondering why typing in "Ancient Pistol" seems to redirect here? Torpov 19:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if it was my call I'd redirect to Henry IV, Part 2, in which he is a more prominent character. Is that what you had in mind? AndyJones 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. I was actually just looking for the band Ancient Pistol. I didn't know that he was a character in the play. Torpov 20:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't heard of them. Are they notable? If yes and if someone creates an article on them, we could turn Ancient Pistol into a disambiguation page. Or, since the character is unlikely ever to need a page of his own, we could make Ancient Pistol an article on the band, with a "For the Shakespearean character see Henry IV, Part 2 and The Merry Wives of Windsor." message at the top. Nothing to do unless/until someone decides to write an article for the band though, I think. AndyJones 09:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Themes OR

The section needs to be verified. This has been discussed several times on several play pages (especially the Hamlet page). Wikipedia needs to guard against anyone being able to put their own interpretation of Shakespeare on the page without a citation. The themes section is especially vulnerable to OR, because people frequently just add whatever they feel is a theme without looking at what scholars have said about it. Wrad 23:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Lots of POV

The Themes and Criticism section real like bloviation from a high school sophomore. Uucp (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. 82.26.127.248 (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Wives - The Musical

In 2006, Merry Wives - The Musical was performed at the RST, starring Judi Dench, Jeffrey Dench, Simon Callow and Alistair McGowan. It seems worthy of inclusion here but i dont know where to include it.... Would be nice if someone who knows more/has more experience cdould add this to the article.....

More info:
RSC.org.uk
Guardian.co.uk

--JuPitEer 20:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cuckold Generalization

Elizabethans found the concept of the cuckold "hilarious"?? I think not. A point of scorn/indication of male weakness (Arden of Faversham) or absolute derision (Nest of Ninnies jokes about wishing all cuckolds dead), maybe. In a society where legitimacy was held as inviolate, a cuckolded husband would be undermining society. Not necessarily "hilarious." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.169.245 (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Some men had serious worries on the subject, but there also sure were a lot of jokes about it during that period ("The horn is not a thing to scorn" etc. etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Date of Writing

The information about when the play was written does not agree with the dates given by this British Library's page on The Merry Wives of Windsor

This page states that "The theory that the play was created as a royal entertainment to celebrate the election of new knights of the Garter in 1597 is no longer widely accepted." and places the date of writing between 1599 and 1600.

I don't know enough about editing wikipedia or scholarly debates on the dating of Shakespeare plays to know whether/how to change the entry.

NerdTaxi (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Tommorow i will wake up and eat food and go shopping at vones thern go to starbucks then eat more then go to sleep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.156.225 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Period setting

I've just been reading the play (not quite finished), and came here to find out how it related to Henry IV, e.g. why Mistress Quickly is a brothel keeper in Henry IV but a doctor's servant in MWoW.

But I'm commenting because I am surprised at the assertion that the play has an Elizabethan setting. Surely it is decisive against this interpretation that Page says of Falstaff that 'he kept company with the wild prince and Pointz'. This can only be a reference back to the young Henry IV, which would make Falstaff about 200 years old by Elizabethan times! (The 'wild prince' could in theory be a reference to the young Henry VIII, but (a) the reference to Pointz reinforces the association with Henry IV, and (b) I doubt that an Elizabethan playwright, who wanted to keep his body parts in their accustomed places, would refer to the living Queen's father as 'the wild prince'!)

Nor do I find anything specifically Elizabethan in the setting. To be sure there are anachronistic references to printing and doublets and hose, but then there are references to clocks chiming in Julius Caesar. Shakespeare just didn't know, or maybe care, much about antiquarian detail - which, incidentally, is one more reason why he can't have been Bacon.109.149.26.166 (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC) PS: I looked up the British Library page on the play, and it concurs in giving the period of the play's setting as 'early 15th century'.86.185.115.206 (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I sourced a bunch of it to the Oxford Edition. Primary sources would be helpful. I also deleted the following line:

"It has also been said that Shakespeare was one of Queen Elizabeth I's favourite playwrights and that she so enjoyed the buffoon Falstaff that she personally requested that Shakespeare write an entire comedy surrounding Falstaff. This would explain the powerful female characters as a bow to the queen and grand slapstick comedy surrounding Falstaff's mishaps in the play."

Anybody is free to put it back as sourced. I felt it was outside the purview of general, unsourced criticism.--Artimaean (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the entire criticism section needs some work. A citation supporting the assertion that "most critics" find it to be one of Shakespeare's weakest plays, for example, would be helpful. 5.107.152.196 (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

There's Criticism and there's criticism

The poor old Merry Wives isn't as bad as this article thinks it is. I've known much worse plays. The tempting of the wives is described really crudely here - and, however low Falstaff has sunk, there's NO suggestion he would blackmail anyone!

Nobody ever seems to think how odd it is realistically that Ford in effect acts out the women's plot. Surely they should be much more surprised than they are?? This would be ammunition to hasty writing theories, but I've never known it mentioned. Again, taking it realistically - no great favour to such a broad comedy - the difference between whether Alice Ford's husband is only said to be coming, or REALLY is, could be the difference between a practical joke and a life-ruining folly. Would you readily believe that your partner made an assignation behind your back in order to humiliate the would-be lover? Well, I'll bet Frank Ford is more suspicious than you.

Rogersansom (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Characters Section

Why are the descriptions of characters sporadically capitalized? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to change that. JohnHeinrich 12:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Merry Wives of Windsor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040221235128/http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/other_sullivan/windsor/index.html to http://math.boisestate.edu/GaS/other_sullivan/windsor/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050906224919/http://www.rsc.org.uk/picturesandexhibitions/action/viewExhibition?exhibitionid=4&sectionid=3 to http://www.rsc.org.uk/picturesandexhibitions/action/viewExhibition?exhibitionid=4&sectionid=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)