001565 SHAKESPEARE'S CLOWN-FOOLS REVISITED WITH AN ORIENTAL ESCORT: A RECONSIDERATION OF FALSTAFF, LEAR'S FOOL, CLEOPATRA'S CLOWN, AND AN EXAMINATION IN THIS LIGHT OF A CLOWN-FOOL OF SANSKRIT DRAMA by Ratna Ray Thesis presented to the Faculty of Arts of the University of Ottawa as partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English Literature. 'BRfii Ottawa, Ontario, 1970 UMI Number: DC53647 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI® UMI Microform DC53647 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 CURRICULUM STUDIORUM Ratna Ray was born in Shillong, India, on July 22, 1936. She received the Master of Arts degree from the University of Calcutta in 1957. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis was prepared under the diligent super­ vision and profound direction of Dr. Richard N. Pollard of the Department of English. Words are insufficient to convey my immeasurable indebtedness to this highly esteemed teacher. Hence, as a token of my sincere appreciation I dedicate this thesis with devotion and reverence to Dr. Pollard. Also, I acknowledge with gratitude the generous and extempor­ aneous assistance, scholarly and minute care, and constant inspiration extended by Dr. Hazel M. Batzer, without which this study would never have been completed. Gratitude is also expressed to those friends in the Central Library and in the Department of English who have assisted in the pre­ paration of this thesis in one form or another. I would like finally to thank the Canada Council for the a^ard of a Doctoral Fellowship and the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, England, for the use of their invaluable collection of ancient materials. CONTENTS Chapter I. Section A. What Is Meant by Clown-Fool 1 Section B. Who Is Vidushaka 4 7 Chapter II. FALSTAFF: "FOOL AND JESTER" 6 8 Chapter III. KING LEAR 140 Chapter IV. ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA 19 2 Chapter V. KALIDASA AND SHAKESPEARE 256 BIBLIOGRAPHY 294 ADDENDUM 30 2 BIBLIOGRAPHY TO ADDENDUM 30 8 ABSTRACT 30 9 PREFACE TO ADDENDUM: MATERIAL PERTAINING TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS THESIS BUT APPEARING IN PRINT AFTER THE ORAL DEFENSE OF OCTOBER 13, 1970. •It is a pleasure to recognize "Antony and Cleopatra: Limits of Mythology" by Harold Fisch, Professor of English in Bar-Ilan University, Israel, which work appeared for the first time in print in Shakespeare Survey, XXIII (December, 1970) , subsequent to the presentation of this thesis and its defense, October 13, 1970, and to see our prior analysis of the Antony and Cleopatra material substantiated by such a renowned scholar. PREFACE Despite centuries of critical efforts to fully explain the meaning of Shakespearean characters, there remain some which need further examination. Three of such characters are Falstaff, Lear's Fool, and the Clown in Antony and Cleopatra. Examined carefully they reveal yet different and deeper significance than they have been given. The greater part of this study will be devoted to minute textual analysis leading to elaborate examination of the functional and meaningful roles played by the three above-mentioned characters. The approaches taken in this study provide for other possible standpoints from which these characters may be studied. As we present our appraisals of a character in question, we will purposely and systematically introduce major previous English scholarship in this area so that the merit of the one against the other may be unbiasedly evaluated. For reasons which will be made evident in the lines to follow, we will refer to all of the three characters examined in this study as Clown-Fools. From the examination of the general qualities of the Clowns and Fools we find that their major characteristics overlap. Renowned authorities in this field have found it necessary to use the two terms, Clown and Fool, as inter­ changeable terms. We merely follow the precedents set by v masters and do not take it upon ourselves presumptuously when we decide to make a compendious term out of these two terms by hyphenating them. Instead of suggesting a third category of classification, we merely point out that because of their common and overlapping qualities it is functional, as the scholars before us have shown, to use the terms almost synonymously. They are not a class by themselves; rather, their ways and means of entertainment strengthen our hypothesis that a Clown can not be completely differentiated from a Fool. We will explain the term Clown-Fool in the beginning of our study in the light of the existing history and development of the Clowns and Fools traced by special­ ists in this field. Our basic supposition is that the three characters in concern have importance much beyond our present recogni­ tion. Falstaff is known mainly as the "most perfect comic character." But his Clown-Foollike qualities, which lead Henry V to address him as a "fool and jester" (II Henry IV, V.v.52), have not been examined and demonstrated extensively. To appreciate the attitude assumed here by Henry V, we have to consider the facts that as a Clown-Fool type, Falstaff makes presumptuous demands, performs unruly deeds, and indulges in irresponsible activities, enabling the play­ wright to implement the rejection necessarily and smoothly- Unlike Lear's Fool, the Clown-Fool type Falstaff is devoid of widom, an indispensable quality in a true Court Fool; vi therefore, instead of being an instrument in the advance­ ment of the kingdom, he becomes an impediment to it. Hence his rejection is justified. In order to prove beyond reasonable doubts that Falstaff is a Clown-Fool and not necessarily a Vice, a sacrificial beast, or Prince Hal's father-substitute, we will cite extensively from major English critics who hold such views and cite substantially from the text with a deliberate intention that such compara­ tive study will automatically establish the merit of the stronger view. The Fool in King Lear has been traditionally inter­ preted as the "wise Fool who sees the truth" before Lear is aware of it. A careful analysis of the lines spoken by the Fool (II.iv-79-86) sheds a magnifying light upon his character and justifies his meaningful role in the play. Substantiated by the text we will demonstrate that according to the specifications given by him of an ideal friend, the Fool proves himself to be just that to King Lear. That the Fool is a compassionate person has been suggested by some English critics but this part of his role has not been analyzed in detail. Textual analysis shows that the malignity of the alien world in which Lear lives becomes more dismal-looking when the King is accompanied by a true friend, played by the hired entertainer of whom the world does not expect more than "hire and salary." Also, the Fool uses universally recognized ethical principles to point out vii the inhumanity in Lear's daughters. Here the significance lies not merely in the Fool's important role as a friend of the bereft King but also in that his particular usage of universal ethical rules reinforces the fact that mankind is bound by a common sense of well-being despite the surface differences. This particular ethical slant in this section will have more bearing on the findings of our last chapter in this study. The Clown in Antony and Cleopatra has received very little attention other than that he is a "foolish clown" who exhibits just love of "long words without being too sure of their meanings" and who incidentally becomes involved in the final scene of Cleopatra's reign. An alert reader can not overlook a line which describes Cleopatra as the "serpent- woman of old Nile" (I.v.25); he may not disregard the fact that Cleopatra is referred to as Isis (III.vi.17-18), an Egyptian goddess; he can not possibly ignore the Queen's traditional belief that "the dead are well" (II.v.33); he may not disregard the change made by Shakespeare in the manner of Cleopatra's death; and last but not least he can not turn away from lines such as V.ii.235-237 and V.ii.311- 313 where first the Queen expresses her gratitude to a rustic Clown for he performs a "noble deed"; and where next, she asks Charmian to be quiet for the baby at her breast faspl nurses her to sleep. These, and many more such references to Egyptian belief in after-life and in their viii mythology, would necessitate a minute analysis and explora­ tion of all possible sources and information which would lead to a possible explanation of the Clown-Fool's role in this play. The traditional belief of the serpent-woman Cleopatra about death is that death liberates one's soul from fleshly captivity and leads it to "live" eternally in after-life. The pitiful rustic Clown brings the Queen to her death. Hence he performs the role of the Executioner- Priest who assists Cleopatra-Isis, the serpent-goddess of the Nile, to be reunited with her eternal lover and husband, Amon Ra-Osiris, as represented by Antony.