Cymbeline 1.I.a

Cymbeline's first scene (act one, scene one) has four parts. It starts with a discussion between two gentlemen. Next, there's a mini-scene between Imogen, Posthumous and the Queen. Then, King Cymbeline enters and has an argument with the other characters. Finally, after Cymbeline leaves, there's a short scene between Imogen, the Queen and Pisanio. I'll tackle each mini-scene in a separate post. So...

Cymbeline 1.I.a: The Two Gentlemen

ACT I. SCENE I.
Britain. The garden of CYMBELINE'S palace

FIRST GENTLEMAN. You do not meet a man but frowns; our bloods
No more obey the heavens than our courtiers
Still seem as does the King's.
SECOND GENTLEMAN. But what's the matter?
FIRST GENTLEMAN. His daughter, and the heir of's kingdom, whom
He purpos'd to his wife's sole son- a widow
That late he married- hath referr'd herself
Unto a poor but worthy gentleman. She's wedded;
Her husband banish'd; she imprison'd. All
Is outward sorrow, though I think the King
Be touch'd at very heart.
SECOND GENTLEMAN. None but the King?
FIRST GENTLEMAN. He that hath lost her too. So is the Queen,
That most desir'd the match. But not a courtier,
Although they wear their faces to the bent
Of the King's looks, hath a heart that is not
Glad at the thing they scowl at.
SECOND GENTLEMAN. And why so?
FIRST GENTLEMAN. He that hath miss'd the Princess is a thing
Too bad for bad report; and he that hath her-
I mean that married her, alack, good man!
And therefore banish'd- is a creature such
As, to seek through the regions of the earth
For one his like, there would be something failing
In him that should compare. I do not think
So fair an outward and such stuff within
Endows a man but he.
SECOND GENTLEMAN. You speak him far.
FIRST GENTLEMAN. I do extend him, sir, within himself;
Crush him together rather than unfold
His measure duly.
SECOND GENTLEMAN. What's his name and birth?
FIRST GENTLEMAN. I cannot delve him to the root; his father
Was call'd Sicilius, who did join his honour
Against the Romans with Cassibelan,
But had his titles by Tenantius, whom
He serv'd with glory and admir'd success,
So gain'd the sur-addition Leonatus;
And had, besides this gentleman in question,
Two other sons, who, in the wars o' th' time,
Died with their swords in hand; for which their father,
Then old and fond of issue, took such sorrow
That he quit being; and his gentle lady,
Big of this gentleman, our theme, deceas'd
As he was born. The King he takes the babe
To his protection, calls him Posthumus Leonatus,
Breeds him and makes him of his bed-chamber,
Puts to him all the learnings that his time
Could make him the receiver of; which he took,
As we do air, fast as 'twas minist'red,
And in's spring became a harvest, liv'd in court-
Which rare it is to do- most prais'd, most lov'd,
A sample to the youngest; to th' more mature
A glass that feated them; and to the graver
A child that guided dotards. To his mistress,
For whom he now is banish'd- her own price
Proclaims how she esteem'd him and his virtue;
By her election may be truly read
What kind of man he is.
SECOND GENTLEMAN. I honour him
Even out of your report. But pray you tell me,
Is she sole child to th' King?
FIRST GENTLEMAN. His only child.
He had two sons- if this be worth your hearing,
Mark it- the eldest of them at three years old,
I' th' swathing clothes the other, from their nursery
Were stol'n; and to this hour no guess in knowledge
Which way they went.
SECOND GENTLEMAN. How long is this ago?
FIRST GENTLEMAN. Some twenty years.
SECOND GENTLEMAN. That a king's children should be so convey'd,
So slackly guarded, and the search so slow
That could not trace them!
FIRST GENTLEMAN. Howsoe'er 'tis strange,
Or that the negligence may well be laugh'd at,
Yet is it true, sir.
SECOND GENTLEMAN. I do well believe you.
FIRST GENTLEMAN. We must forbear; here comes the gentleman,
The Queen, and Princess. Exeunt

I need to start by understanding what they're saying on a literal level. Here's where textual notes (in my various editions) and The Oxford English Dictionary come in handy. Sometimes a line is enough like modern English for me to understand it immediately. Sometimes a note or two will help. Sometimes, I need to paraphrase a section before I understand it.

Over the years, I've come up with a system for making textual notes. For instance...

FIRST GENTLEMAN. You do not meet a man [] but frowns [who does not frown]; { our [] bloods [moods]
{ No more obey the heavens than our courtiers
Still seem as does the King's. }

{ Just as our moods obey the heavens, our courtiers follow the king's lead. }

the note [who doses not frown] explains the meaning of "but frowns." I indicate that by placing open/close brackets before the word "but." So if you see open/close brackets, you'll know that the following text is explained by the next bracketed note:

[] but frowns [who does not frowned]
[] bloods [moods]

Sometimes, I'll paraphrase a section. I'll put the paraphrase between open/close curly braces and wrap the corresponding untranslated text in similar braces:

{ No more obey the heavens than our courtiers
Still seem as does the King's. }

{ Just as our moods obey the heavens, our courtiers follow the king's lead. }

Okay. Let's get to it!

FIRST GENTLEMAN. You do not meet a man [] but frowns [who does not frown]; { our [] bloods [moods]
{ No more obey the heavens than our courtiers
Still seem as does the King's. }

{ Just as our moods obey the heavens, our courtiers follow the king's lead. }

He's saying that the king is sad (angry? vexed?) and that all the courtiers are following his lead by frowning.

One thing to note here is that Gent 1 is having to explain this to the second gentleman. To me, this implies that Gent 2 is a stranger (or socially inept). If he was of the court, surely he'd know this already (and much of the following information). Hm... Should we make Gent 2 a foreigner? We could also play against the script and make him a small child. Gent 1 could be a daddy explaining the ways of the court to his son.

At first, it seems Gent 1 is just describing things: everyone is frowning. But there's a bit of commentary at the end: everyone is aping the king. More than that, he's saying it's inevitable that everyone obeys the king. This reminds me of modern quips about fashion: "When Brad Pitt wears ripped jeans, everyone starts wearing ripped jeans." Is Gent 1 making a wry comment about fashion? Is he implying that people BETTER frown if they know what's good for them? Is he implying that the courtiers are being opportunistic -- frowning because they know it will win them the King's favor?

What's his attitude about this? Is he colluding? "Isn't it funny how we're all fooling the king?" Is he warning? "You [son, foreigner] had better start frowning if you know what's good for you!" Is he setting himself above the fools at court? "I see right through those hypocritical frowners!"

I'm starting to see some possible actions: condescend, belittle the courtiers, mock the courtiers, warn Gent 2, teach Gent 2, reveal the plot (to fool the King), recruit Gent 2 (to join the plot). Some of these seem more likely than others; some seem more playable. It will be interesting to try some out in rehearsal, to see how they color the scene and how they excite the actors.

The goal is never to get the audience to understand the action. Watching a play isn't a guessing game. The goal is to give the actor something exciting and fun to play. If he plays "to mock" and the audience thinks he's doing something else, that's fine - as long as the audience thinks he's doing something interesting. If the actor feels he's doing something interesting, he'll interest the audience.

Moving on...

SECOND GENTLEMAN. But what's the matter? [pause -- short line]
FIRST GENTLEMAN. His daughter, and the heir of's kingdom, whom
He purpos'd to his wife's sole son- a widow
That late he married- hath referr'd herself
Unto a poor but worthy gentleman. She's wedded;
Her husband banish'd; she imprison'd. All
Is [] outward sorrow [show of sorrow vs. king's real sorrow?], though I think the King
Be touch'd at very heart.

Gent 2's first line is even more evidence that he's an alien at court. He has no idea that the princess is in trouble. At this point, his action is pretty simple: he's trying to solve a puzzle, the get hip with what's happening, to not look like a rube, to get to the bottom of things...

I noted that there's a pause after his line. That's because this section is in verse. Iambic Pentameter to be precise. Most lines are stressed like this: tee-TUM, tee-TUM, tee-TUM, tee-TUM, tee-TUM. "Her HUSband BANish'd; SHE imPRISon'd ALL..." But this line breaks the pattern. It's missing some syllables: "But what's the matter?" tee-TUM, tee-TUM, tee..."

One way to play this, if it makes sense, is to take a pause during the time the remaining syllables would be said if this was a normal line. But why would there be a pause there? My guess is that it's not Gent 2's pause. He's asked his question. He's done.

So it's Gent 1's pause. Maybe he's a bit taken aback by Gent 2's blunt question. (Maybe he wasn't done speaking and Gent 2 interrupted.) Maybe he needs to pause for a second while he gathers his thoughts, while he figures out the best way to explain the situation. Maybe the pause means "Jesus Chrirst! That's a question and a half... How do I even begin to answer?" Maybe the pause is filled with Gent 1's ironic laughter.

Maybe he switches to a conspiratorial (or scared) whisper during this next speech:

FIRST GENTLEMAN. His daughter, and the heir of's kingdom, whom
He purpos'd to his wife's sole son- a widow
That late he married- hath referr'd herself
Unto a poor but worthy gentleman. She's wedded;
Her husband banish'd; she imprison'd. All
Is [] outward sorrow [show of sorrow vs. king's real sorrow?], though I think the King
Be touch'd at very heart.

This is all new information for the audience: the King's wanted his daughter to marry his wife's son (by a previous marriage). But instead, she married a poor (but worthy) man. The King got so upset about this, he banished the poor man she married and threw her in prison.

But this is a speech to Gent 2, not to the audience. So the actor can't just deliver exposition. So why is he telling this to Gent 2. Well, Gent 2 DID ask! Again, Gent 2 seems clueless about the politics and mood of the court. And in addition to explaining the facts to him, Gent 1 editorializes...

"All / Is outward sorrow, though I think the King / Be touch'd at very heart."

At court, everyone is just making an outward show of sadness (outrage? shock?), but the King is genuinely upset.

As with earlier speeches, is Gent 2 warning Gent 1? "If you don't want trouble, act like you're upset!" Is he enlisting Gent 2 in a plot? "We're all fooling the king!"

Be touch'd at very heart.
SECOND GENTLEMAN. [] None but [only] the King?

This is a shared verse line!

Be (tee) touch'd (TUM) at (tee) ver (TUM) y (tee) heart. (TUM) None (tee) but (TUM) the (tee) King? (TUM)

So Gent 2 jumps right in -- interrupting Gent 1's line. Gent 2 may be a newbie, but he's getting the point. He's zooming right in on the key issue. Gent 2, at least given his first two lines, seems to be really good at going for the jugular. And the action (ask a skeptical question, ask a pointed question...) seems to work, because Gent 1 has to amend himself. It's not JUST the King that's upset.

FIRST GENTLEMAN. He that hath lost her too. [Cloten? Posthumus?] So is the Queen,
That most desir'd the match. { But not a courtier,
Although they wear their faces [] to the bent [according to the inclination]
Of the King's looks, hath a heart that is not
Glad at the thing they scowl at. }

{ But there isn't a courtier -- though they adjust their expressions to suit the king's desire -- that isn't glad at heart about what they're frowning about }

It seems to me like Gent 1 GRUDGINGLY concedes that he exaggerated about ONLY the King being upset. "Yes, yes, yes, there are a few others, but..." Maybe the actor should rush the first couple of sentences. Give an inch, but not a mile. He then returns to his main theme, that the BULK of the courtiers are shamming.

This is a classic Thesis/Antithesis speech -- a comparing of two opposites. They crop up all over Shakespeare. At their simplest, they're lines like "To be (thesis) or not to be (antithesis). It's really helpful for the actor to understand -- and play -- the form of the speech:

FIRST GENTLEMAN. this this this this this this this this this this. BUT that that that that that that that that that that.

When he's saying the "this" part, he's already thinking ahead, knowing he's going to overturn it with the "that part." Usually, but not always, the "that" is the speaker's REAL opinion. He brings up "this" as the "exception that proves the rule."

In the "BUT that" part of the speech, Gent 2 is reinforcing his idea, underlining his point, hitting his point home...

SECOND GENTLEMAN. And why so?

Once again, to the point! Is Gent 2 possibly impatient with Gent 1? Would he rather talk to someone less wordy? Or is he rapt? Is he saying "For God's sake, spill the beans?" Or is he saying, "Tell me more! Tell me more"?

FIRST GENTLEMAN. [] He [Cloten] that hath miss'd the Princess is a [] thing [guy]
Too bad for bad report; and he [Posthumous] that hath her-
I mean that married her, alack, good man!
And therefore banish'd- is a creature such
As, to seek through the regions of the earth
For one his like, there would be something failing
In him that should compare. I do not think
So fair an outward and such stuff within
Endows a man but he.


That's another thesis/antithesis. Cloten bad; Postumous good. It's also such extreme praise (for Posthumous), it's almost worship. It IS worship. Maybe this is the heart of the scene: "We -- the courtiers -- love Posthumous, but he's been banished and we have to pretend we're on the King's side." If Gent 1 has been whispering thus far, trying to give Gent 2 the scoop without endangering their lives, it would be interesting if he forgot himself here and spoke full voice while waxing poetic about Posthumous.

SECOND GENTLEMAN. You speak him far.

Once again, to the point. Interesting that Gent 2 doesn't show his hand. He doesn't say, "Posthumous sounds great. I can understand why you love him so." He just says, "I can see you like him."

FIRST GENTLEMAN. [] I do extend him, sir, within himself; [I do praise him for his own internal qualities]
{ Crush him together rather than unfold
His measure duly. }

{I make him seem small when -- If I was a better speaker -- I should be trumpeting his true worth.}

Does Gent 2 get Gent 1 to betray even more of his passion for Posthumous? Maybe so, or maybe with no need for prodding, Gent 1 chastises himself for (so he thinks of himself) being such a poor speaker. He berates himself, he flagellates himself...

SECOND GENTLEMAN. What's his name and birth?

Gent 2, ever cagey, plays the scientist. He gathers data, he collects tools...

FIRST GENTLEMAN. I cannot delve him to the root; his father
Was call'd Sicilius, who did join his honour
Against the Romans with Cassibelan,
But had his titles by Tenantius, whom
He serv'd with glory and admir'd success,
So gain'd the sur-addition Leonatus;

|----------|
LUD CASSIBELAN
|
|
TENANTIUS
|
|
CYMBELIE


In that last bit, Gent 1 is praising Posthumous by listing his pedigree. If I was playing Gent 1, I'd have to translate the speech into more modern terms: "His father was General Patton..."


And had, besides this gentleman in question,
Two other sons, who, in the wars o' th' time,
Died with their swords in hand; for which their father,
Then old and fond of issue, took such sorrow
That he quit being; and his gentle lady,
Big of this gentleman, our theme, deceas'd
As he was born. The King he takes the babe
To his protection, calls him Posthumus Leonatus,
[] Breeds [educates] him and makes him [] of his bed-chamber [a personal servant],
Puts to him all the learnings that his [] time [age]
Could make him the receiver of; which he took,
As we do air, fast as 'twas minist'red,
And in's spring became a harvest, liv'd in court-
Which rare it is to do- most prais'd, most lov'd,
[] A sample [an example] to the youngest; to th' more mature
A [] glass that feated them [mirror that reflected them elegantly]; and to the [] graver [more serious? closer to the grave]
A child that guided dotards. [a youngster that guided old men] To his mistress,
For whom he now is banish'd- [] her own price [the price she was willing to pay]
Proclaims how she esteem'd him and his virtue;
By her election may be truly read
What kind of man he is.

Gent 1 ends his praise by telling Posthumous's story and listing his many virtues. In this speech, directed at Gent 2's heart, Gent 1 spins a tear-jerker, tells a "Paul Bunyan" story, mythologizes Posthumous, etc. He's making Posthumous's story into a Speilberg epic, complete with a John William's score. It works...

SECOND GENTLEMAN. I honour him
Even out of your report. But pray you tell me,
Is she sole child to th' King?

Or does it? Is Gent 2 won over or is he patronizing Gent 1? He sure changes the subject quickly. Now he's interested in Imogen. (It seems as if he's able to change the subject to Imogen by agreeing with Gent 1 about Posthumous.)

Whether or not she's the sole child is, of course, of great importance. If she's the sole child, she's heir to the throne. And the man she marries will be king.

FIRST GENTLEMAN. His only child.
He had two sons- if this be worth your hearing,
Mark it- the eldest of them at three years old,
I' th' swathing clothes the other, from their nursery
Were stol'n; and to this hour no guess in knowledge
Which way they went.
SECOND GENTLEMAN. How long is this ago?
FIRST GENTLEMAN. Some twenty years. [the boys are aprox 23 and 20.]
SECOND GENTLEMAN. That a king's children should be so convey'd,
So slackly guarded, and the search so slow
That could not trace them!
FIRST GENTLEMAN. { Howsoe'er 'tis strange,
Or that the negligence may well be laugh'd at,
Yet is it true, sir.
{ However strange it seems -- or however much the negligence may amaze people -- it's true. }

SECOND GENTLEMAN. I do well believe you.


Interesting that this is Gent 2's longest line:

SECOND GENTLEMAN. That a king's children should be so convey'd,
So slackly guarded, and the search so slow
That could not trace them!

Throughout the scene, Gent 1 has told Gent 2 a serious of stories. THIS is the one that most interests him and captivates him.

SECOND GENTLEMAN. I do well believe you.

And presumably it's linked to Gent 2's earlier question about the heir to the throne. With scant evidence and much imagination, I'm going to suggest that Gent 2 is a foreigner (maybe from Italy -- which figures much into the later events) who wants to know what's going to happen when the old King dies. (Depending on who ascends the throne, things may be good or bad for Italy.) Maybe -- and here I'm being really fanciful -- Gent 2 is a spy.

Gent 1 has a different agenda. He wants to win Gent 2 over to the pro-Posthumous camp. This camp may be much more than just a bunch of guys who like Posthumous. They may be a political alliance. They may be meeting to decide what to do about Posthumous's banishment. Maybe Gent 1's friends asked him to enlist the Italian gentleman in their cause.

Even if the actors play all this, the audience won't get it. But it will infuse their playing with immediacy, fun and court intrigue. The audience may not get what's going on, but they will feel that SOMETHING is going on -- and that's what's most important. At heart, this is an exposition scene. My job -- while making sure the actors speak clearly enough so that the audience follows key bits of info -- is to make the scene playable, which means to make it about characters trying to get something from each other.

In the end, we never find out these characters agendas:

FIRST GENTLEMAN. We must forbear; here comes the gentleman,
The Queen, and Princess. Exeunt

We never see Gent 1 and Gent 2 again.