Abstract
In 1593, more than half a decade before William Shakespeare wrote Much Ado About Nothing (1598–99), Anne Davies, “a Virgin of good fame free from all suspicion of incontinency,” brought a defamation action in the Court of King’s Bench against John Gardiner, who proclaimed that she had mothered a bastard. While Anne’s cause is not precisely Hero’s in Much Ado About Nothing, the case’s circumstances, pleadings, and rulings elucidate the complex legal and social dimensions of slander and libel in late Elizabethan England that inform Shakespeare’s play.1 Claudio’s literally stunning and unwittingly false accusation of Hero, which reenacts and attempts to displace Don John’s assault on his honor, reveals not only how gendered social conventions enable a culture of slander, but also how the law of slander might be exploited and abused. The play, however, is not only about abuse; it is also about remedies, social and legal, available and denied. From Claudio and Hero, to Beatrice and Benedick, to Dogberry and the watch, to Leonato and Don Pedro, the play asks what slander costs, how it is known, and whether law and the courts are a necessary and sufficient recourse for its victims. Like Hero, before she was slandered Anne Davies was regarded as a desirable wife. Anthony Elcock, a wealthy London mercer, was concluding marriage negotiations with Anne’s father.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Martin Ingram, Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England, 1570–1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 292–96.
Laura Gowing, “Language, Power and the Law: Women’s Slander Litigation in Early Modern London,” in Women, Crime and the Courts in Early Modem England, ed. Jennifer Kermode and Garthine Walker (Chapel Hill, NC, and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1994), pp. 26–47. Evidence from Ingram, Marchant, and Gowing undermines the argument of S.P. Cerasano’s essay on slander law and Much Ado About Nothing, “Half a Dozen Dangerous Words,” in Much Ado About Nothing and The Taming of the Shrew, ed. Marion Wynne-Davies (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001), pp. 31–50. According to Cerasano, by Shakespeare’s time the ecclesiastical courts were becoming extinct and “slander suits lost their natural legal venue” and were heard instead in at least three different secular courts that were hostile to the claims of women (p. 33). Not only were the courts hostile to women, but the law could do nothing to restore a damaged reputation. Cerasano argues that Hero is victimized by men who “use language to set up the law for their own advantage [and] … to diminish women to nothingness” (p. 44). While Hero is certainly victimized, as Cerasano argues, the law of slander that plays out in Much Ado About Nothing acknowledges the vitality of the ecclesiastical courts noted by Ingram, Marchant, and Gowing.
Anthony Fletcher, Gender, Sex, and Subordination in England 1500–1800 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995), p. 101.
R.H. Helmholz, ed., Select Cases on Defamation to 1600, vol. 10 (London: Seiden Society, 1985), p. xxx.
Lindsay Kaplan, The Culture of Slander in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Kaplan establishes the relationship between this cultural phenomenon and literature by looking at Spenser’s Faerie Queene, Ben Jonson’s Poetaster, and Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure. It is probably not surprising that she does not consider Much Ado About Nothing, since she is more interested in how slander participates in a political discourse of state repression and artistic resistance.
William Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, 1.3.46, 48, in The New Cambridge “Much Ado About Nothing”, ed. F.H. Mares (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
Phoebe S. Spinrad, “Dogberry Hero: Shakespeare’s Comic Constables in their Communal Context,” Studies in Philology 89 (1992), 161.
John A. Allen, “Dogberry,” Shakespeare Quarterly 24 (1973), 46.
Edward Guilpin, Skialetheia or A Shadowe of Truth (London, 1598), C2. Among the satires published in 1598 in London were John Marston’s Pygmalion (1598), Thomas Middleton’s Microsynicon (1598), John Davies’ Epigrames (n.d.), and Joseph Hall’s Virgidemiarum (1597, 1598). All of these were banned in 1599 by order of the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury. For a discussion of the 1599 so-called Bishops’ Ban, see chapter 9 of my Press Censorship in Elizabethan England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2007 Cyndia Susan Clegg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clegg, C.S. (2007). Truth, Lies, and the Law of Slander in Much Ado About Nothing. In: Jordan, C., Cunningham, K. (eds) The Law in Shakespeare. Early Modern Literature in History. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230626348_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230626348_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-54334-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-62634-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)