Shakespeare’s comedy Much Ado About Nothing revolves around the marriage of Hero and Count Claudio, which quickly becomes convoluted by secrets, omissions, and lies. Still, Hero and the Count are destined to be married all the while Don John, the “plain-dealing villain,” plots their demise. As to be expected, in the first scene of the fourth act, the secrets, omissions and lies that had been accumulating finally erode, and the stress seemingly kills Hero; seemingly, that is, because key characters are under the false impression that she is dead.
In this moment, Friar devises a plan to keep Hero’s revival a secret among those who were there to witness it. With this intention, during his next encounter with Claudio, Leonato must omit the fact that his daughter, and Claudio’s wife-to-be, is alive. Furthermore, Leonato then lies to Claudio by leading him to believe that his words killed Hero. As evidenced through each of these measures, these three terms can be organized hierarchically such that secrets are at the core of all lies and omissions, and that lies encompass all omissions and secrets (see Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Relationship between secrets, omissions and lies.
Ironically though, the characters resolve to use the very thing that got them into this situation—secrets, omissions, and lies—to get them out of it. Thus, how each character utilizes these deeds, in turn, contributes to their characterization and influences the formation of the reader’s opinion of the characters.
The frequent occurrence of secrets, and their concurrence with omissions and lies, supports that they are a requisite component of both omissions and lies. Secrets, as defined by the OED, are pieces of information “kept from public knowledge, or from the knowledge of persons specified; not allowed to be known, or only by selected persons.” After the commotion of some highly atypical wedding vows, Hero faints and is presumed dead by Claudio (among others). At this point Friar’s scheme is born, and he says “She, dying, as it so must be maintained” (Ado, IV.i.225). This pertains to keeping Hero’s revival a secret, except to those who witnessed it, of course. In keeping a secret, it is particularly important to control the dissemination of information to only specified persons, as the definition states. After all, if all the characters were aware of the truth surrounding Hero’s status, it would not be a secret nor could Friar’s plan work. And so, a divide between characters forms: those who are in the know, and those who are not. Albeit, the reader is fully aware of all affairs (dramatic irony) and, consequently, is in a distinct position to judge the characters on their actions.
Despite secrets carrying a negative connotation, how a character avails oneself of them substantially affects his perception. For example, Friar intends to utilize secrecy virtuously: “Come, lady [Hero], die to live,” he says, “This wedding day / Perhaps is but prolonged” (Ado, IV.i.266, 267). Indeed, the father intends to rescue the relationship of Hero and Claudio. As can be seen, Shakespeare demonstrates that not all secrets are destructive to relationships. Accordingly, Friar’s noble pursuit aids in the audience developing a favorable opinion of him. This should come at no surprise because during Shakespeare’s time, the clergy was most highly revered and their council was trusted; that is, Shakespeare’s favorable portrayal of the clergy is deliberate. While this secret is a testament to Friar’s righteousness, it is also indicative of Hero’s vulnerability. In other words, Hero’s reputation has been so severely tarnished; the general public thinking she is dead is the next best thing to actually being dead. Inevitably, as a condition of human instinct, the audience sympathizes with Hero and grants her reprieve from the stigmatization that secrecy carries. Thus, in a circumstance such as this, the audience can morally defend the trickery—of which she is at the center—formulated by the knowledgeable characters as well as support Friar’s plan.
In order for Friar’s plan to succeed, the secret that Hero is alive must be preserved. Leonato omits, or he “leave[s] out […] intentionally,” the fact that Hero is alive when he next sees his future son-in-law, Claudio, after the scene at the altar (OED). In consideration of the fact that Claudio was arranged by her father Leonato to take Hero’s hand in marriage and that Claudio is under the impression that Hero is dead, it is a reasonable expectation that the father of the bride should share the great news of her recovery. However, he intentionally does not. Furthermore, he does not say anything false, either; specifically, Leonato says to Claudio “Thou hast so wronged mine innocent child and me” (Ado, V.i.70). Indeed, as the reader knows and all of the characters will soon discover, Claudio did wrongfully slander Hero, and by the same token her father.
What qualifies this dialogue as an omission, as opposed to only a secret, is the deliberate exclusion of information that is presumably of considerable importance to Claudio. As implied, in order for one to omit something, there must first be a secret (or, information that only specified people know) to omit. For example, in the opening scene of the play Leonato is debriefed on a rundown of a battle. He is told by a messenger that “But few [were lost] of any sort, and none of name” (Ado, I.i.6). The messenger failed to mention names of the soldiers that died, but this should not be regarded as an omission for two reasons: firstly, it is no secret that men died in fighting the battle and, as war stories are told, it will become public knowledge; secondly, the modern interpretation of “none of name” can be regarded as anyone that bears a particular significance about which Leonato would care to know. As can be seen, without a secret, there cannot be an omission. In contrast, when comparing the secret surrounding Hero’s revival and its subsequent exclusion from Claudio’s purview, the latter is an omission because it purposefully suppresses pertinent information in the effort to achieve a desired outcome. Although, this claim is made with the reasonable assumption that Claudio would care enough to know how the woman he wants to spend the rest of his life with is doing. With this in mind, determining what is considered relevant information is subjective and ultimately lies at the discretion of the source. This consideration raises a serious ethical dilemma since it begs the question, who has the right to determine what is (and is not) relevant for someone else? Nevertheless, under these circumstances, Hero’s health should be considered relevant, especially to her future husband.
Intriguingly so, Leonato makes out unscathed by the audience in his omission to Claudio. This is because both Hero and Leonato are the victims of malicious lies and, therefore, they garner sympathy for themselves throughout the play. The most compelling evidence for this surfaces when Benedick, Claudio’s right-hand man, says “[…] though my inwardness and love / Is very much unto […] Claudio, / […] I will deal in this” (Ado, IV.i.256-259). While this could be considered an act of betrayal, it is certainly not depicted that way. If Claudio’s close companion is willing to go along with this scheme, the audience will likely align with the Friar’s plan. That is to say, Benedick’s participation in the ruse demonstrates that the omission is for a good reason since it can be assumed he has Claudio’s best interest in mind. Consequently, the reader is able to disregard Claudio’s sensibilities and overlook their duplicity as they attempt to rightfully restore their reputations that were tarnished Claudio. In essence, their victimization is their absolution.
In continuation with Friar’s plan, Leonato escalates his omission (aforementioned) to a lie. To clarify, a lie differs from an omission in the sense that it is “a false statement made with [the] intent to deceive” (OED). To put it another way, it is the inclusion of misleading and fallacious information rather than the exclusion of an illuminating and entirely truthful account. In like fashion, Leonato is attempting to instill a sense of guilt in Claudio when he says “Thy slander hath gone through her and through her heart, / And she lies buried with her ancestors” (Ado, V.i.75-77). Previously, Leonato only mentioned that Claudio had wronged Hero; however, in this instance, he knowingly makes a false statement. In consideration of Leonato’s intentions (i.e., the noble endeavor to reunite Hero and Claudio), Shakespeare is implying that, sometimes, lies are justifiable. Be that as it may, it again underscores the subjectivity and ethical dilemma in determining what constitutes a lie as justifiable (or not). In other words, the person being lied to might disagree with the liar in that respect.
It is important to note that within Leonato’s lie are both an omission and a secret: an omission because he fails to mention that, contrary to popular belief, Hero is alive; and a secret because only select people know the truth. Arguably, any lie is an omission of the truth, and so all lies are predicated on an omission of some sort. Likewise, the truth is also kept secret—sometimes to a single person, but in this instance, a small group of characters. But, when does an omission become a lie? The situation with Leonato and Claudio illustrates the concrete transition from a mere omission to an outright lie. A lie, though, is not necessarily in the words, or lack thereof; but, rather, in the intended outcome. Abstractly speaking, a calculated omission can also be a lie (i.e., a lie of omission) if a lack of information is intended to influence an outcome. Lies of omission were at work in this plot, and had the knowledgeable characters told the whole truth, a whole lot of conflict could have been avoided. A great fuss over lies and omissions that amounted to nothing.
In a plot of perpetual secrets, omissions, and lies, how is it possible that certain characters build rapport with the audience, while others are demonized? Much Ado About Nothing rebuts the conventional wisdom that deceptive individuals are contemptible which effectively asserts a duality. Some characters seek to create disastrous aftermath, while others attempt to mend fences. Accordingly, the characters are judged on whether they choose to use deception for the better or for the worse. In this play, there is a strong indication that secrets, lies and omissions that work to the benefit of others are morally and ethically just. Moreover, it also speaks to a time-old phrase “the ends justify the means.” As the phrase implies, the goal of reuniting the happy couple justified the immoral deceit used to achieve that outcome. Regardless of the successful outcome, though, telling truth should be considered as the best policy since it avoids the intricate, ethical dilemma of who benefits and who is harmed by secrets, lies and omissions.
2019-4-14-1555251679