In both Much Ado About Nothing and Cymbeline, Shakespeare depicts characters who continually make judgments or act based on things they have heard or seen.  The themes of deception and appearance versus reality recur throughout the two works.  The metaphor, "The world is a stage," is critical to the development of the themes of appearance versus reality and deception, as many scenes are staged on stage for the sole purpose of deception.  The settings play an important role as the characters are involved in, and are victims of deception.  The difference between appearance and reality is depicted over and over again within the two plays as Shakespeare informs the audience (and characters) how appearances can be grossly manipulated.  This often-false appearance furthers, and sometimes creates, the deception(s) of the plays.  The role of spectator/eavesdropper becomes an esteemed position, and scenes are also staged to play on this feeling of superiority of the spectator/eavesdropper, deceiving the spectator after all.  The spectator observes a spectacle to be true or have merit, but his or her judgments are influenced by preconceived ideas or expectations, ultimately leading to a flawed interpretation (Myhill 292).  Through his use of irrational, but redeemable, characters, Shakespeare demonstrates the mistakes of judging too hastily, and of abandoning trust and loyalty for deception and guile.  The play creates twisted and devious storylines, and though some things may seem unforgivable, good prevails over evil and the redemption process occurs.  Shakespeare uses spectatorship and appearance versus reality to manifest deception, and to remind the audience that things are not always what they seem, neither by sight nor rumor.

     Shakespeare takes considerable pains to prove that not only are things not always what they seem, but also that more than one interpretation of a spectacle is possible (Myhill 292).  This is brought out early in the plays, and can be seen as foreshadowing things to come. In Much Ado About Nothing, Act 1, Scene 1, Claudio and Benedick have an exchange about Hero.  The two men obviously see Hero, and her beauty, in different ways. Claudio describes her as the loveliest woman in the world, and Benedick remarks:  "I can see yet without spectacles, and I see no such matter" (1.1.176-177).  The 'spectacles' to which Benedick refers seem to color the world -- especially for those in love. Spectacles are eyepieces intended to enhance the wearer's vision, not render him blind (as love often does).  Throughout this play these spectacles seem to have the opposite affect; they cloud vision instead.  This is accomplished through deception and staging. One example of this is Don Jon's villainy of Hero with Don Pedro and Claudio. Don Jon paints a picture, lending the two eyes, or spectacles, through which they will view the scene before them, and Hero suffers a loss of reputation (and, it appears, life) as a result.

     Similarly, in Cymbeline, the king's vision has been colored by his love for the queen. The queen is truly heartless and evil.  Many in the play, nobles and servants alike, note the wicked traits, but these traits elude the king.  The king, the symbol of wisdom and power in any country, is blinded and fooled by love and deceit of the queen.  The queen even comments on the influence she has over the king due to his love-clouded vision. "Yet I'll move him / To walk this way:  I never do him wrong / But he does buy my injuries, to be friends / Pays dear for my offences"  (1.2.34-37).  Nosworthy interprets this as the king submitting to the queen's wrongs in order to retain her favor, or even that the king may interpret her injuries as favors, looking out for his best interests (Shakespeare 8).  This is a very plausible explanation in light of the queen's villainy and cruelty.  The king is convinced of her villainy only upon her deathbed confession.  In both Cymbeline and Much Ado About Nothing, members of nobility are fooled by appearance/deception when others are not. Shakespeare shows villainy and deception at all levels of society, creating a more realistic and inviting scenario/venue.  He retains the respect of all audiences as they laugh at the follies of others, and gain insight into their own.

     A pivotal scene in Much Ado About Nothing in which dual interpretation is explored is the wedding scene and the blush of Hero, Act 4 Scene 1.  Claudio interprets this scene as:  "Her blush is guiltiness, not modesty" (4.1.41).  The Friar, on the other hand, sees the blush as a sign of innocence and virtue in Hero:  "I have mark'd / A thousand blushing apparitions / To start in her face, a thousand innocent shames" (4.1.58-60).  The Friar's interpretation, indeed correct, is the only hope of Hero and her destroyed reputation.  Possibly because of the Friar's position in society, and possibly because he is a man, the other men are at least willing to entertain the belief in Hero's chastity and attempt to reconcile her misfortune.  The remarks of Beatrice in this scene, in which she swears to have been in Hero's presence/bedroom every night other than the last, is also misinterpreted by the irrational men in the play.  Instead of seeing the statement as contradicting Borachio's claim of wooing Hero in her bed chamber "a thousand such times," they see it as a sign of Hero's guilt on one night (Myhill 294).  This explanation is not explored in the play, mirroring societal standards of women's lesser roles and influences. In any case, the blush is interpreted based on Hero's appearance to the men, not on her actions or reality.

     In Cymbeline, the examples of dual interpretation of events occur less often, and are accompanied by irrational, distrustful behavior.  One such example can be found in the wagering scene, Act 2 Scene 4, where Posthumus sees the bracelet as proof, yet Philario sees it as unacceptable and unconvincing of Imogen's infidelity.  Posthumus reacts to Iachimo's proof irrationally, much like Claudio reacts to Don Pedro in the courtship of Hero in Much Ado About Nothing.  Posthumus surrenders his wager even before he hears intimate details of Imogen.  Iachimo presents the bracelet to Posthumus and he feels all is lost. Posthumus makes the single inquiry:  "May Be she pluck'd it off / To send it to me" (2.4.104-105).  He does not even consider the various ways the bracelet could have been obtained. Philario, a friend to Posthumus, must remind him of the thievery in the world before Posthumus reclaims his ring and demands more proof.  In response, Iachimo simply swears:  "By Jupiter, I had it from her arm" (2.4.121), and Posthumus is ready and willing to believe the word of a stranger over the honor of his wife.  In these dual interpretations of proof, Shakespeare does much to assert the irrational behavior of a "wronged" husband or betrothed.  This same irrationality is seen in Claudio throughout Much Ado About Nothing, beginning when he has little more than met Hero, and escalating from there. Again Shakespeare points out that things are not always as they seem, and sometimes things can be seen in different ways, so maybe it's best not to jump the gun.

     In Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare toys with the spectator/eavesdropper, whether a character of the play or the audience, as he proves that things are not as they seem.  The idea of secretly hearing or seeing (eavesdropping), carries with it considerable weight.  It implies that eavesdropping is a privileged position, because by eavesdropping one has access to secret information about themselves or others.  The spectators enjoying this seat truly believe they have the upper hand.  In Much Ado About Nothing, Act I, Scene 1, Don Pedro and Claudio have a "secret" conversation on stage, which is heard by everyone (Myhill 298).  The audience briefly believes that its knowledge is superior because now they know a secret.  In like fashion, Beatrice and Benedick feel that they have stumbled upon some great, secret information. Both the characters and the audience soon find out that this is not the case.  The secret of Don Pedro and Claudio is being told all over town, and reaches the court even before they do.  The master plan of the characters seems to have been exposed, and the audience's superior knowledge is short lived (Myhill 298).  In the cases of Beatrice and Benedick, both who believe they have heard only the truth, the audience and the speakers know that they have been plotted against and deceived.  The two listeners, however, do not even entertain the idea of deception because the privileged roles as eavesdroppers "ensure" the truth and validity of the speech.  After all, people will often speak a truth behind another's back and leave it unsaid to his or her face (Myhill 296).  Beatrice verifies this shared premise in the lines:  "What fire is in mine ears? Can this be / true?" (3.1.107-108).   Her love was kindled at once, just as Benedick's was, simply because it was overheard information, supposedly not intended for their ears, and therefore the truth.

     Don Pedro and Claudio aspire to be eavesdroppers in a later scene as they try to gather evidence against Hero.  The key to the deception here is not so much what they see, but what they have been told they will see.  Don Jon has implanted the idea that they will view Hero wooing a "common stale" at her bedroom window in the moonlight (Myhill 299).  They are, in effect, looking through the colored "spectacles" given to them by the villain.  Just as they deceived Benedick earlier, now they too have been deceived in their roles of spectators/eavesdroppers.  This superior position undoubtedly contributed to their willingness to believe Don Jon's story, and to their unwillingness to investigate further. As in many scenes, the combination of deception, spectatorship, and "colored" appearance create the mischief within the play(s).  It is man's belief in his own ability to see and judge, and his inability to trust and love completely, however, that nurtures and sustains such deception.

     While the characters of Cymbeline do not gain an abundance of knowledge as spectators/eavesdroppers, the audience, however, does gain superior knowledge.  They are able to hear the remarks of the queen as she asserts her hold over Cymbeline, and her remarks of dislike for Imogen and the king.  The queen's remarks confirm to the audience her wickedness, which may have already been suspect.  The audience also learns of the doctor's suspicions of the queen in his remarks to the side, Act 1 Scene 6, 30, 33-44.  This becomes important later in the play as Belarius, Guiderius, and Arviragus believe Imogen to be dead, and the audience knows the drugs will only feign/mimic death.  The audience is the ultimate spectator in any production, and here their knowledge is truly superior, unlike that in/of Much Ado About Nothing.

     In both works, deception is the instigating factor in the plots, and the lack of trust and love is key to the deception.  In Cymbeline, Imogen loses her honor (and life) because of her husband's irrational response based on deception.  Iachimo is able to convince him of Imogen's infidelity, but it is his loss of or lack of faith in Imogen herself that secures her fate. Posthumus knows Imogen, that knowledge is reality, and here he allows himself to be deceived by words and appearance.  In like fashion, Hero of Much Ado About Nothing loses her honor (and life) due to Claudio and Don Pedro's deception; more unbelievable is that Leonato allows himself to be led by rumor. Just as Posthumus did Imogen, these men allowed the reality of Hero to be blemished by appearances instead of fact, and they are victims of their own sight.  Both heroines are stripped of their dignity; the good deeds/works they have done, and the good names and reputations they have built for themselves mean absolutely nothing.  Shakespeare demonstrates how frail reputations really are: these things, which take a lifetime to build and can be destroyed in an instant by mere words and appearances.  The realities of the women have been over-shadowed and outdone by appearances, tainted by rumors and deception.

     In Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare requires the audience to believe in the premise that the spectator/eavesdropper is correct in thinking he holds superior knowledge.  If the audience does not, then Don Pedro and Claudio (and even Leonato) become fallen and un-savable characters, instead of merely flawed and redeemable.  The audience is left to wonder if indeed Margaret did resemble Hero at the window, and if they were within earshot, if she sounded like Hero (Myhill 300).  The audience never knows for sure, so they assume the un-staged scene was convincing, and that the two were not simply hotheaded and relying on Don Jon's loyalty and trustworthiness.  Shakespeare humanizes the characters as their falls and ensuing irrational behaviors are the results of deception and manipulation, and the redemption process is an effort to prove that man can learn from the error of his ways.  In this way the spectator can laugh and learn of deception and false appearances without feelings of resentment, shame, or abandonment.  His is an effort to expose the frailties of reputation and society, not to adhere to them.

     Though spectatorship does not play as large a role in Cymbeline as in Much Ado About Nothing, deception and appearance versus reality play integral roles.  Both plays, plots and subplots, are developed around deception and false appearances.  These elements combine to create trials and hardships for those lacking trust, loyalty, and love -- and even self-control.  Shakespeare takes the mundane and ordinary norms of society and unravels them for all to see the inequities they prescribe. He plays on man's own trust in himself  (and his senses), as he distrusts those close/loyal to him.  In the style of comedy, all ends well after the redemption process, and life goes back to normal.  Shakespeare assigns truth to the adage:  "One can't believe any of what he hears, and only half of what he sees."  The characters fall victim to deception, spectatorship, and appearance in these plays, just as many do in the real world.

Works Cited

Myhill, Nova. "Spectatorship in/of Much Ado About Nothing." Studies in English Literature. 
     Spring 1999. 291-309.

Shakespeare, William. Cymbeline. Ed. J. M. Nosworthy. United Kingdom:  Thomas 
     Nelson & Sons Ltd, 1997.

Shakespeare, William. Much Ado About Nothing. Ed. A. R. Humphreys. Singapore:
      Thomson Learning, 2001.