Tragi-Comedy

Philaster and the Role of Nonfatal Woundings

To what extent is tragi-comedy reliant upon misinformation, deceit, and then as a denouement, a reversal of the consequences (namely executions halted and informed relationships to desires that are reaffirmed)? Philaster seems to follow this layout: the tragedy begins when Pharamond accuses Arethusa of having an affair with Bellario. Philaster believes the rumor, echoing Othello quite strongly. But then during the hunting incident Philaster wounds Arethusa and then in turn is wounded by the Country Fellow. All parties live, however. That is the significant break, to me. Thus, to what extent is the wounding significant in the play? The play possesses a sense of recoverability as do the characters; redemption is possible, albeit only through the revelation that Bellario is in fact a woman (which I am sure can lead to an innumerable amount of questions). Consequently, what role do nonfatal woundings play in tragi-comedies?

A King and No King: Failed Violence or Nonexistent Violent?

Like Philaster, A King and No King does not end with bloodshed but it does revolve around it, mostly in regards to Arbaces desire to murder Gobrias. He has the desire but refuses to play into such rage; his rage does not get the “better” of him, although he is still filled with hatred. As a result, where does tragic-comedy separate itself from the desirous nature of comedies and the bloody endings of tragedies?