Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Modernist Meanings in the European Renovation of Commedia

Modernist Meanings in the European Renovation of Commedia

MODERNIST MEANINGS IN THE EUROPEAN RENOVATION OF COMMEDIA

DELL’ARTE

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Anita Jean Saha, B.A., M.A.

Graduate Program in Spanish and Portuguese

The Ohio State University

2014

Dissertation Committee: Eugenia Romero, Advisor Stephen Summerhill, Co-advisor Rebecca Haidt

Copyright by

Anita Jean Saha

2014

Abstract

This dissertation explores the rediscovery of commedia dell’arte in Europe during the Modernist era (approximately 1890-1930) by dramatists and theatre directors, which led to its usage as a tool for individual experimentation and general escape from the anxieties associated with the changing political environment. The of commedia dell’arte theatre was, for many theatre practitioners, the perfect structure with which to counteract the dominant realist aesthetic that was prevalent throughout Europe at the time. Although these Modernist commedia-based plays and productions were generally created as art-for-art’s sake, this is not the case everywhere, as evidenced by some of the themes, both overt and masked, in the works of a few Spanish dramatists.

Using literary history as the theoretical framework, this dissertation contends that

Modernist commedia-based serve as an appropriate point of departure for comprehending literary reactions to, and reproductions of, the revolutions in technology, politics, and social practices that contributed to the modern order. While representations of cynical , such as , were mostly apolitical, the pessimism that dominates the , the and the puppet plays can be viewed in response to the radically changing social and political environment.

The primary focus of this study is to analyze, in the broader literary and historical context, what place Spanish commedia-influenced dramas have in the transnational scope of the European Modernist movment. Narrowing the focus of this investigation to those

ii elements that are salient in the Spanish commedia plays, I investigate Harlequin’s status as a poet in five of these dramas, a that contrasts significantly with his traditional , a buffoon. In plays by Jacinto Benavente, Gregorio Martínez Sierra and Ramón del Valle-Inclán, Harlequin’s poetic and psychological depth is observed both through the influence of French Symbolist and as a steward of the changing Modernist

Zeitgeist. It is Harlequin’s ability to independently of his commedia stock characters that insures his immortality, in that his antics are just as much relevant to during the early twentieth century as they have been since he first surfaced in the sixteenth century.

iii

Dedication

This document is dedicated to my teachers.

iv

Acknowledgments

I am forever grateful for the patience, encouragement and insights granted me by my advisor, Stephen Summerhill. His guidance allowed me to enjoy this process, something that I had long-feared as a solitary and daunting task. I feel privileged to have had such a dedicated partner in this endeavor, and I greatly value the time and that he has gifted me.

I also would like to thank my committee members, Eugenia Romero and Rebecca

Haidt, whose knowledge and enthusiasm for my project have been much appreciated.

I wish to acknowledge the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the Ohio

State University for giving me the opportunity to study under many gifted scholars.

Additionally, the experience that I gained teaching at the university level has been both formative and rewarding, and I thank the department for preparing me well as an instructor. I would also like to thank all of the faculty and staff members who guided and aided me throughout this process; their efforts have been significant and I hold in great esteem their dedication to learning and efficiency.

The quest for a good dissertation topic is one of the most challenging tasks set before a doctoral candidate. Therefore this step merits a mention of thanks as the idea for my thesis developed during a lecture in 2003 given by the literary critic, writer and director of the Real Escuela Superior de Arte Dramático (RESAD), Ricardo Doménech.

v

In our conversation following his lecture, Professor Doménech directed me to additional primary sources and encouraged me to study at the RESAD, to further my interest in dramatic literature. I benefitted greatly from the opportunities he afforded me while studying in , and I will always remember his kindness.

Indispensable to this process has been the love and support of my family members, and I wish to thank my immediate and extended family: the Sahas, Ernestis,

Vucetics and the Dunnes. My husband, Srdjan, and our bright-eyed daughter, Marina, have been so patient during this process, and I look forward to enjoying our time together as a family post-dissertation.

Last but not least, my parents, my strongest role models and greatest supporters, deserve my most heartfelt praise. Their steadfast dedication to my well-being and education, and their willingness to assist me in whatever task I set before myself has kept me in the best of company during my lifetime. My father’s generosity and sense of humor, and my mother’s determination and expert care, now being lavished upon the next generation, continue to amaze me, and any achievement of my own is truly theirs.

vi

Vita

1997 ...... Crystal Lake Central High school

2002 ...... B.A. Spanish, Illinois Wesleyan University

2003 ...... M.A. Spanish, Middlebury College

2005—2010 ...... Graduate Teaching Associate, Department

of Spanish and Portuguese, the Ohio State

University

Publications

“Los pretendientes de la mujer: la desigualdad en los personajes masculinos de A Madrid me vuelvo por Bretón de los Herreros.” Deseo, poder y política en al cultura hispánica. Valladolid 2007, Ed. R. de la Fuente Ballesteros y J. Pérez-Magallón. Valladolid: Universitas Castellae, 2007.

Field of Study

Major Field: Spanish and Portuguese Minor Field: Theatre

vii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgments ...... v

Vita...... vii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 2: Here we are again! ...... 42

Chapter 3: "Other" Modernist Manifestations: Commedia dell’Arte in 108

Chapter 4: Harlequin, Poet ...... 143

Final Conclusions ...... 178

Bibliography...... 187

viii

Chapter 1: Introduction

1 A) Brief overview

Harlequin… happily takes his place in scores, in hundreds, of dramatic pieces…Harlequin is a character infinitely repeated, theatrically pervasive. –Allardyce Nicoll

However does he do it, this Harlequin, this ? How does a single theatrical character become “pervasive” and “infinitely repeated”? Do other great figures of the stage share this universality? Can we say that is instantly recognized by appearance alone; that he encounters new adventures and attributes throughout the centuries as myriads of authors worldwide sketch more life into him? Does King Oedipus ever free himself of his tragic shackles to grace foreign stages in countless scenarios for his capacity as a richly symbolic figure? Perhaps it’s not admissible to compare

Harlequin to these princes and kings of drama, as he was not born on the page rather than on a lively stage, at the whim of those who improvised and molded his role many centuries ago.

Akin to Oedipus’ Greek roots, Harlequin, like all European mimes and clowns, originates from the Young Satyr of the Old Greek , which was later adopted by the Romans (Niklaus, 18). However it is not until the year 1601, curiously enough the same year that Shakespeare’s Hamlet is composed, that the earliest illustration of

1

Harlequin is published in Tristano Martinelli’s Les Compositions de Rhétorique de M.

Don Arlequin. Although there are endless conjectures as to the origins of this Italian

Renaissance figure, the illustration by Martinelli is a good starting point for evaluating

Harlequin, even though he was established and active during the better part of the 16th century. Truth be told, much can be explained through appearance alone, and this earliest

Harlequin was covered from head to toe in all the trappings of a comic .

Tristano Martinelli, a celebrated who reached fame through his portrayal of

Harlequin, illustrates himself in this, his principal role. The ink drawing makes certain the early 17th century Harlequin costume, which consists of a suit of tight pants and a jacket, which extends halfway down his thigh. This suit is covered in patches of irregular shapes, some of which are diamonds. Around his waist is a thick black belt, from which he carries a wooden sword and a small purse. On his feet are flat black shoes, and his head is covered by a black cap that is decorated with a rabbit’s tail. His face is concealed by a black that extends from his hairline to just under his nose, thus only revealing a short beard underneath. This is the essential Harlequin costume although depictions in the mid seventeenth century show marginal modifications: the patches on his clothes were converted into a symmetrical pattern of blue, red and green triangles, which were bordered by a yellow braid of ribbon; he began to wear a black skull cap over his head on which a grey felt hat was placed and still adorned with the rabbit, hare or fox tail on its crest; his sword, or batte, became longer and lighter, and his black leather half-mask acquired a chin strap of the same material (Beaumont, 48). By the late seventeenth century the triangles on his suit became diamond-shaped, his jacket was shortened and his traditional cap was replaced with a double pointed hat. This last costume adjustment

2 is one that is most widely recognized even today, perhaps due to Modernist art, as

Cézanne and Picasso painted their in diamond-patterned suits with a two- point hat.

Also intrigued by Harlequin’s costume was the 18th century commedia dell’arte , Carlo Goldoni. As he states in his Mémoirs:

In traversing the country of Harlequin, I was curious to observe whether there was any existing trace of that comic character which afforded such to the Italian theatre. I could see neither the black visages, nor the small eyes, nor the ludicrous party-coloured dress, but I observed the hair tails in the hats with which the peasants of those districts are still equipped (Goldoni, 128).

This “hair” or hare tail, which adorns Harlequin’s hat, is a bit of a curiosity, as it is uncertain if it is meant to tie him to Bergamo, his birthplace, or draw a parallel between himself and peasant simpletons. Maurice Sand, in his 19th century study on the commedia, noted that the “…animal tail is another from antiquity. A fox’s brush or a hare’s ears were attached to anyone who was the butt of ridicule” (Duchartre, 134).

Whatever the true purpose, we can ascertain that Harlequin’s bright costume conveyed a playfulness of character, while the rabbit tale added to his symbolic buffoonery. Another accessory of Harlequin’s throws this joviality of appearance off kilter, his mask. This dark mask, adorned with stiff eyebrow and upper lip bristles, a large wen under one eye and a wart, give off a barbaric, vulgar impression. Ducharte ponders the peculiarity of

Harlequin’s mask as well: “The mask suggested a cat, a satyr, and the sort of negro that the painters portrayed.” He then questions why the mask is in fact black, and concludes that “Perhaps it is because the ancient Harlequin was a phallaphore; and, inasmuch as some of the phallophores of the ancient theatre played the parts of African 3 slaves, it is thought that Harlequin might be their direct descendant” (Duchartre 135).

This may well be true; however, it is also apparent that a mask itself transmits the essence of theatricality, and has been for centuries identified with histrionic performance. The commedia dell’arte employed the use of varied half- for the key players in its ensemble, those who are commonly referred to as the “vecchi,” or older men, and the

“” or servants. These older men, Pantalone, il Dottore and il Capitano were always accompanied by comic servants: Pulcinella, Brighella, and

(Harlequin). Only Pedrolino was the exception, as his powdered white face was his mask, and he joined the “” or lovers, who also never wore a mask: Isabella, Flavio,

Flavia, Ottavio, Colombina (servant to the female lovers), to name a few. Allardyce

Nicoll, the commedia dell’arte historian, writes about the uniqueness having some figures wear a half-mask while others did not:

If the mask had been complete, a somewhat awkward cleavage would have resulted, as though we were being confronted by beings from two separate worlds; as it is, the half-masks allowed for the measure of distinction desired without making an absolutely firm line between the one group and the other…and anyone who has had the opportunity of witnessing a performance in the commedia dell’arte manner will agree that a great part of the effect created depends upon the sharp, and yet not too sharp, juxtaposition of the two sets of dramatic figures (Nicoll, 42).

Therefore Harlequin, without a merry utterance, without a skillful tumble or a telling gesture, is a visual flood of symbolic reference and personality. While his suit of geometric shapes and colors evokes a sense of playfulness and distraction, his wooden bat or sword and his rabbit tail hat, make him out to be the . His mask, although

4 frightening and savage, also places him among the principal of the troupe; also, through his mask he has a consistency of being, no matter who chooses to interpret him.

1 A I) Stereotypical Harlequin

Harlequin, or Arlecchino in Italian, lends his most prominent personality characteristic to his upbringing. He hails from the city of Bergamo, located in the northern Lombardia region of , just north of . Bergamo is divided into two sectors, the città alta, or upper city, and the città bassa, or lower city. The beautiful

Medieval upper city is surrounded by Venetian walls and abounds with cathedrals, a basilica and other architectural gems constructed on its perch. The lower city is a flat residential landscape where the business of its population is conducted. In Harlequin’s day it was recognized that the residents of lower Bergamo were stereotypically “fools and dullards” whereas the upper town was home to “nimble ”(Duchartre,124). Needless to say, Harlequin is from Bergamo’s città bassa, as he is grossly depicted as a

Renaissance buffoon. Moreover, on the Italian stage he always conversed in the Bergamo dialect to enhance his persona as an unenlightened servant. His fellow valet, Brighella, was also raised in Bergamo, but he called the città alta home. Unlike Harlequin he plotted with , always aware of the consequences of his crafty actions, as Harlequin was left bemused. Harlequin was a dolt, but a loveable one; and even when his immorality got the best of him, he was never violent or cruel. The 18th century French historian, Jean-François Marmontel, best describes Harlequin:

His character is a mixture of ignorance, simplicity, wit, awkwardness and grace. He is not so much a fully-developed man as a great child with glimmerings of and whose mistakes and clumsy actions have a certain piquancy. The true model of his performance is the suppleness, agility, grace of a 5

kitten with a rough exterior which adds to the delight of his ; his role is that of a patient servant, loyal, credulous, greedy, always amorous, always getting his master or himself into a scrape, who weeps and dries his tears with the ease of a child, whose grief is as amusing as his joy (Nicoll, 73).

This man with his childish innocence is conserved in his nascent essence in Flaminio

Scala’s Il Teatro delle favole rappresentative, published in 1611. On its pages we can enjoy the earliest representation of commedia dell’arte plays as documented through a collection of detailed scenarios, absent of dialogue and only indicative of and stage direction. This collection is divided into 50 plays or 50 “days,” as Scala refers to them, and each begins with a detailed background story summarizing the events that occurred prior to the action depicted in the play. By examining one of these scenarios,

The Husband, we can acquire a stronger understanding of the nature of commedia dell’arte ensemble structure and plots.1

We are told that two older gentlemen, Pantalone and Dottore Gratiano (vecchi), live in and each have a child. These children, Isabella and Oratio (innamorati), are sweethearts. However, although the doctor’s daughter is of noble birth she is not wealthy. Therefore, in order to prevent his son from marrying Isabella, Pantalone sends him on business to . Oratio assures Isabella that he will return; however they agree that if he does not come back after three years then she is free to marry another. As time passes Isabella confides in her servant, Franceschina (one of the other names attributed to

Colombina) about her woes, and they devise a plan. In order to prevent Pantalone from impeding his son’s return to Naples they decide to pretend to marry off Isabella to

1 All of the following quotes are taken from Scala, 66-72

6

Franceschina, disguised as a man. In order to carry out this scheme they enlist the help of a physician who gives Franceschina a powerful drug to make her appear dead, and they pretend to bury her. Then Franceschina escapes to and after a year comes back disguised as a gentleman named Cornelio. Impressed by this Roman gentleman, Dottore

Gratiano gives him his permission to marry his daughter. Franceschina then sends for

Oratio, knowing that his father, Pantalone, will not object now to his return to Naples.

From this point the play begins, and included in the action are Pantalone’s servant,

Pedrolino, and Docttore Gratiano’s servant, Arlecchino. The stage is far from elaborate, only depicting two homes. Scala indicates which characters are featured, followed by a short summary of their interactions:

PANTALONE From inside their houses, Pantalone and Gratiano call for their DR GRATIANO servants, Pedrolino and Arlecchino, and then come out. Pantalone complains that Pedrolino works too hard, and Gratiano complains that Arlecchino is lazy. Pantalone congratulates the Doctor because he married Isabella to a Roman youth and he wants to find a husband for his ward, Flaminia, who was the daughter of Cassandro. Gratiano offers to take her himself, and Pantalone promises to think it over. Gratiano tells him he will send Arlecchino over for the answer and goes. Pantalone remains and speaks of his love for Flaminia. He hopes to enjoy her himself because the Doctor is poor and he is rich. Then he calls Flaminia.

Oratio has returned to Naples, and is in the company of the Captain, who knows of his love for Isabella. The Captain himself is in love with Flaminia who was promised to the

Doctor. When Oratio approaches Isabella she faints, and Oratio and his servant Pedrolino weep over her. At this point Scala indicates that “Arlecchino comes out of the house, sees 7

Isabella, and thinking she is dead, begins to weep over her. As he and Pedrolino carry her into the house, Oratio leaves in tears, and the first act ends.” As the second act opens we notice that servants are always sent on their masters’ behalf with messages, some are intent on playing tricks, and much confusion ensues. Harlequin, duped by Pedrolino’s false news that Olivetta is intended for Harlequin in marriage, decides to help Pedrolino convince Isabella that Oratio still loves her. “Arlecchino urges Isabella to make not only

Oratio happy, but many other men as well.” He then sees that Cornelio has overheard him and attests to him that he has “…the most virtuous wife in the whole city.” In the third and final act, under the cover of night, Pedrolino pulls the puppet strings as the play reaches its . Arlecchino enters and “Pedrolino tells him he is to dress up as a woman, and when he gives the signal Arlecchino is to come, and he will be taken to

Olivetta.” Pantalone wants to bed Flaminia before her wedding night, and is convinced by Pedrolino that it can be arranged. As Pedrolino sends the “female” Harlequin to

Pantalone’s bed, he also tricks the Dottore into thinking that he is sharing a bed with

Flaminia, while it is Olivetta who’s in his room. Then Isabella and Oratio having made amends bed down together while the Capitan and Flaminia do the same. Pantalone’s revelation that he is not with a woman, if not Harlequin, starts an uproar which lands all of the couples out on the street, exposed. Pedrolino is also tricked in the end by Isabella, who had sent him to lie in her place with Cornelio, thinking that he’s seen the ghost of

Franceschina in her hair curlers. The scene ends with Cornelio’s true exposed, and the marriages of Oratio with Isabella and the Captain with Flaminia ensue.

As evidenced in The Husband, these commedia plots were usually based on amorous intrigues with favorable outcomes. Needless to say, these gay scenarios were not

8 at the heart of the fascination with the commedia spectacle; it was improvisation, the ability of the actors to also be authors that makes the commedia unique. The French playwright Gherardi wrote of what it meant to be “a good actor in the Italian style.” He found imagination to be key, not memorization, and this was aided by reading the great literature of the times, even that which their characters would hypothetically come in contact with. Successful improvisation, to him, also included actors working in concert with each other, never speaking while another was, always responding to the words and actions of the other and never taking the action in their own direction (Nicoll, 24).

Conscious of these suggestions as they were, commedia improvisers had a sure-fire trick that ensured a cohesive performance. Known as lazzi, these were comic bits that interrupted the plot and were practiced to perfection by the actors. The lazzi almost always involved the vecchi and zanni, as they were the principle butt of and sources of comedy; therefore, those with Harlequin abound. To give an example, in a hiding lazzo, Harlequin or Pedrolino would be alone with an innamorati or female servant, and

Pantalone would knock at the door; left with no place to conceal himself, Harlequin hides under a sheet pretending to be a chair. When Pantalone enters the female player would warn him not to sit, but he does so anyway. The discomfort of both would be obvious, but

Harlequin is not discovered (Gordon, 33). In another scenario by Scala, The Trials of

Isabella, Harlequin is Captain Spavento’s servant, and he’s dressed in one scene as a beggar to hide his identity and also to get some food. One can only imagine that in scenes like this Harlequin would resort to a begging lazzi or hunger lazzi. In this case it would be certain that Harlequin would demonstrate his hunger by chewing on his shoes or some other property on stage. As for begging, which occurred often with the zanni characters,

9

Harlequin would normally show his by begging with one hand, pretending the other was injured, only to forget and start using it. He would also pretend to be first a

Spanish beggar, then a French one and then a German one, interpreting these nationalities as he saw fit, and always found out by those he was beguiling (Gordon, 49). However, the lazzi most commonly associated with Harlequin were those of acrobatics, his trademark skill and a principal reason why he became popular abroad. Harlequin possessed a singular agility and suppleness of body. Allardye Nicoll, in his study of

Harlequin, found him to have 3 principal movements associated with his person. First was the way he would enter a stage with a sort of impertinence and urgency, strutting with his legs hardly bent. Second, he would constantly alter his height by lowering his head, and not his shoulders, and then return back to normal height. In this way he also appeared to be a hunchback, although he had no padding in his suit. The third movement was the elaborate manipulations of his accessories, his hat and wooden bat (Nicoll, 70).

Therefore as he moved around stage he was sure to entertain with acrobatic lazzi, such as contorting his body backwards, head between his legs and limbs twisted, in order to catch an invisible insect. When he accomplished a feat, he was known to celebrate with a number of double back springs. In other acrobatic lazzi he would imitate an animal, such as a cat, cleaning himself with his tongue and scratching himself behind the ear with his foot; or, through some magic, he would be transformed into a donkey as another zanni would ride him, feeding him leaves (Gordon 11-12).

Harlequin was the most difficult commedia figure to interpret on the stage; yet each century produced a handful of actors who rose to great fame in this role. It was the individual skills of these actors that also brought new life to the figure, some with their

10 athletic abilities and others with their wit. Niklaus writes on the great demands it was to be Harlequin:

He who played Arlecchino must be a mime, a dancer, an acrobat, a wit and a linguist: he must be so technically skilled that he could hold the play together single-handed in any emergency, delight his with a brilliant solo whenever the occasion presented itself, play the leading rôle spontaneously while he kept a firm hand on all the other players and all the ramifications of the plot, perform many different lazzi, in the course of a single play: and never fail to keep the audience aware of the greedy dolt with the patched dress and strange black face. No ordinary actor would ever do for Arlecchino: and that was a factor that helped to make him extraordinary (Niklaus, 60).

Extraordinary is the word that indeed describes the Harlequin actors throughout the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries who received the favor of the courts, and thus international fame. One of these, Alberto Naseli (c.1540-c.1584), otherwise known as

Zan Ganassa was the first recorded Harlequin actor. He is also attributed with introducing the commedia dell’arte to Spain. His company traveled to as well, and he became a favorite of the queen of France, Caterina dei Medici (Oreglia, 59). Another great

Harlequin, Tristano Martinelli (1556-1630), published, as was mentioned before, the first illustration of Harlequin. A member of the Accesi and then Fedeli commedia companies, he traveled many a time to Paris and became a favorite of the nobility. Hentry IV made special requests for his presence, and Marie dei Medici would lure him to Paris with fine gifts (Nicoll, 170). He was the first actor of the 17th century to bring high regard to the

Harlequin role. After Martinelli’s death, Domenico Biancolelli, known as Dominique rose to even greater heights as Harlequin. Dominique was best known for his wit and his ability to use his defects to his advantage. His voice, for instance, was said to be of an 11 unpleasant and harsh , but as he excelled at physical tricks and was exceptionally witty, the public would not tolerate any Harlequin who did not speak in his manner. No stranger to Paris, Dominique was a favorite of Louis XIV, and he also made his way to the Viennese stage. He was keenly skilled at , which was his claim to success abroad, as the subtle humor of his Italian dialects was lost to those crowds. When he later died during a performance in 1688 at the age of 52, he was deeply mourned (Duchartre,

154). Towards the close of the 17th century, Evaristo Gherardi also found success as a

Harlequin, although his real contribution to the art was a collection of commedia scenes called Le Théâtre italien, which were published in 1696 (Oreglia, 62). Around this time

Tomasso Visentini, with his exceptional agility, was elevating Harlequin to new levels of notoriety through physical feats. Visentini introduced audiences to a new lazzo of fright, where being scared by something, Harlequin could turn a full summersault in the air without spilling a drop of his wine. Visentini was also a skilled tightrope walker who not only performed daring stunts, but would crawl like a fly around the first, second and third galleries of the theatre (Nicoll, 70).

More than two centuries of commedia dell’arte spectacle were possible because of the actors who never let it grow stale, those of whom only the great Harlequin figures have been named here. However it was not just the actors’ contributions that shaped the commedia, it underwent many alterations and changes as well. As the commedia companies traveled abroad, alterations were made to insure the success of this Italian cultural import; meanwhile change was inevitable by the end of the 18th century as theatrical direction began to advance towards and .

1 A II) Harlequin Takes to the Road

12

The records that survive today are mostly those of royal court visits that various commedia companies made abroad, documenting their diffusion into France in the early

16th century as well as Spain, the Germanic states and England, by the end of the century.

In general these companies traveled by land, although the occasional sea voyage was not unheard of. These long journeys by road were arduous and dangerous, as robbery and disease were all too common. However, throughout the 16th-18th centuries the major commedia companies traveled abroad either by invitation of a foreign court or on behalf of an Italian patron in a gesture of good faith; also when there was bleak economic success at home, they would travel on their own accord, believing that the journey was worth the hardship.

As previously mentioned, brought his theatre troupe to Spain in

1574, building a theatre for himself in the Corral de la Pacheca in Madrid and staying there until around 1582 (Nicoll 167). Five years later Tristano Martinelli made a trip with his company to Spain as well, although only to stay there for one year’s time. The commedia was warmly welcomed by Spanish audiences; however it did not have the same impact on national theatre and public reception as it did in England and France.

In Paris the commedia dell’arte companies found the courts closely allied to their

Italian courts, thus enabling amicable passing of troupes between the two countries as early as the first half of the sixteenth century. Such was their success in Paris that by the mid seventeenth century a group of players formed a permanent company there called the

Comédie Italienne. They shared a theatre with Molière, who was significantly inspired by the commedia form, and they then finally acquired their own theatre, called the Thèâtre

Italien. Having a permanent theatre in Paris required altering aspects of the commedia

13 dell’arte to please its French audiences, language being the principal problem. The Italian actors had to their advantage the fact that French was a romance language, and thus similar to their own. However those Italian dialects with their subtleties of speech for humorous effect were lost on their French audiences. Therefore, although actors integrated some French into their dialogues, it was other devices that helped them draw in their crowds. The first innovation was what was referred to as “machines.” These included apparatuses that transported actors from one location on stage to another, or created visual tricks that baffled audiences and added a magical flare. In Evaristo

Gherardi’s collection of scripted plays presented by the Comédie Italienne, he includes a drawing before each play, which on a whole depict fantastic scenes and machines that were sure to captivate audiences; mythological scenes abound as Harlequin can be seen in the role of Arlequin Jason, or in scenes such as Arlequin Empereur dans la

Lune (Nicoll, 178). In one of these, Arlequin Mercure Galant, Harlequin is shown in the air riding on a winged horse, while in Arlequin Prothe’e he has the tail of fish while in the background Poseidon is carried on a conch shell supported by two horses (Duchartre,

105). In Gherardi’s collection more protagonism is given to Harlequin than any other commedia dell’arte player, and this, like the machines, was another significant permutation from the commedia structure. The emphasis on single players was very popular in France as the comic interaction between Italian was lost to them, and they were keener to follow a central . Although this violated the essence of commedia ensemble acting, it contributes heavily to the reason why Harlequin stands apart from the rest, why he is so widely recognized to this day. With his adroitness and reliance on physical humor, language was not a barrier. Harlequin could interact with

14 audiences and have them rolling with laughter without uttering a word. Thus abroad,

Harlequin acting was reduced to pantomime, and those actors such as Dominique,

Martinelli and Visentini were to become masters of pantomime in France. Little by little, commedia dell’arte theatre was stripped down to the pageantry of song, and acrobatics, of which Harlequin was king. This metamorphosis became more pronounced when the Comédie Italienne players were forced to leave France in 1697, after having upset the king’s mistress through making several unflattering remarks in a performance

(Nicoll, 176). With the Italian actors gone, the fairs were quick to pick up their act. These theatre fairs produced many a commedia inspired show, but they were only focused on acrobatics, song, dance and low-brow comedy. By the close of the seventeenth century audiences in France enjoyed a much altered commedia theatre, but they were not the only ones.

In the sixteenth century the commedia dell’arte theatre companies reached

England by way of France, however the experience could not have been more different.

English was not a romance language, and therefore communication by word was the most obvious difficulty for these troupes. Moreover, the Italians did not share the same familiarities at court as they did with the French, and were very much foreign to the

English. A considerable amount of time passed before commedia theatre warmed its way into the hearts of the Elizabethan public. This was aided, in part, by the visits of prominent Englishmen to France and the traveling abroad of English actors who all spoke with high praises of the commedia dell’arte. However, it was the fairs in that picked-up the acrobatic Harlequins, almost a century before they became a standard at the

French fairs (Niklaus, 129). Completely removed from the stage, these tight-rope

15 walking, tumbling Harlequins paved the way for the commedia’s acceptance on the stage.

Shakespeare too was well acquainted with the commedia as he calls his clowns “zanies,” writes of his “dagger of lath” in reference to Harlequin’s bat and mentions Pantalone or

Pantaloon by name in his play As You Like It (Niklaus, 128). The writer Aphra Behn is also intrigued by the commedia and borrows almost entirely the French Arlequin

Empereur dans la Lune in her version, The Emperor of the Moon. Here we see

Harlequin’s personality conserved, and reminiscent of a classic Harlequin lazzo:

HARLEQUIN: My Mistriss Mopsophil to marry a Farmer’s Son! What, am I then forsaken, abandon’d by the false fain One? –If I have Honour, I must die with Rage; Reproaching gently, and complaining madly. –It is resolv’d, I’ll hang my self—No,--When did I ever hear of a that hang’d himself? No—‘tis the Death of Rogues. What If I drown my self?—No, -- Useless Dogs and Puppies are drown’d; a Pistol or a Caper on my own Sword wou’d look more nobly, but that I have a natural Aversion to Pain. Besides, it is as Vulgar as Rats-bane, or the sliceing of the Weasand. No, I’ll die a Death uncommon, and leave behind me an eternal Fame. I have somewhere read an Author, either Antient or Modern, of a Man that laugh’d to death—I am very Ticklish, and am resolv’d –to dye that Death (Behn, 31-32).

After tickling every inch of his body while leaping about, Harlequin finally falls down, apparently dead; however he revives himself quickly when speaks to him of his beloved Mopsophil. Although Harlequin’s childish nature is transmitted through these lines, commedia dell’arte theatre is depicted in this play through the French lens.

Even the English Harlequin actors, Joseph Haynes, being the first in the mid seventeenth century, to be followed by Tom Jevons and William Pinkethman, were imitative of the

French Arlequin and never the Italian Arlecchino (Niklaus, 133). Their Harlequins were 16 more akin to the acrobats of the fairs, and never the comic improviser. Therefore the seventeenth century English Harlequin was very much akin to his French version in their shared characteristics of commedia reform outside of Italy.

1 A III) Decline of the commedia dell’arte

By the close of the seventeenth century commedia companies had reportedly traveled to Munich, Brussels and Austria. They also arrived in Warsaw at the beginning of the eighteenth century at the request of August II, Elector of Saxony. This troupe did not last long there as their leader, Angelo Constantini, was caught having an affair with the king’s favorite mistress. Soon after, Tommaso Ristori arrived in 1715, while

Constantini languished in prison, to stay there with his own company at the invitation of the court for 15 years (Nicoll, 191-192). Ristori’s company, after leaving Poland, decided to venture to , where they performed for the Empress Anna Ioannovna (Nicoll,

197). Harlequin, or Kherlikin, as he was known in Russia, and Arlekin, in Poland, was appreciated for his and buffoonery, but the commedia dell’arte did not have a lasting presence in these lands until a century later.

In Italy the commedia dell’arte theatre was still ever present in the eighteenth century, although it too was undergoing changes. These changes were not similar to those made abroad due to language barriers; these were changes to the arguments of commedia plays, marking a shift from the comic to the socially conscious. At the head of these reforms was Carlo Goldoni, who in Italy had written over a hundred scripted commedia dell’arte plays in the mid eighteenth century, which were performed in Italy and France.

Goldoni was concerned with bringing “character, social criticism and purpose to the stage,” within a realistic structure:

17

By character he meant individual specialized character distinct from the wider, generalized character familiar to the commedia dell’arte; by social criticism, he meant the presentation of scenes of ordinary life such as were being cultivated by sentimental dramatists in France and England; and by moral purpose, he meant the exhibition of plots which should not merely please but should also instruct the audience (Nicoll, 205).

In his 1750 play, Il teatro comico, Goldoni makes clear his opinions about improvisation and unrealistic theatre. In a moment where his Brighella has unscripted dialogue, his

Orazio says, “You see? That’s the reason why we must try to bind the actors to written parts; otherwise they easily fall back on antiquated and unrealistic dialogue” (Nicoll,

208). Goldoni was not alone in this mindset; another great contemporary of his, Carlo

Gozzi, was also a proponent of scripted theatre, thus also abandoning the improvisational aspect so fundamental to commedia theatre. Goldoni went further than Gozzi in his commedia reforms, which were meant to cultivate an educative and realistic comedy. In this way Goldoni showed that he was receptive to the theatrical trends that were present at the end of the eighteenth century in Europe. Goldoni was inspired by Samuel

Richardson’s epistolary , Pamela, and wrote a play based on this story. Goldoni’s

Pamela fanciulla includes a scene set in London where several gentleman discuss the theatre:

ERNOLD. English plays are critical, instructive, full of good characters and witty sallies, but they don’t make you laugh. In Italy the public can enjoy bright and clever . O, if you could have seen that lovely character Harlequin! It’s a shame that London audiences will not accept masks on the stage. If we could introduce Harlequin into our comedies, it would be the most delightful thing in the world. He represents a servant stupid and witty at the same time. He has a 18

most ridiculous mask; his costume is made up of many colours; he makes you die of laughter. Believe me, my friends, if you could see him, for all your seriousness you would be forced to laugh. He says the wittiest things. Instead of saying padrone he’ll say poltrone. Instead of saying dottore he’ll say dolore. For cappelloi he’ll say campanello, for lettera he’ll say lettiera. He’s always talking about eating, he flirts with all the girls. He beats his master terribly.

LORD ARTUR (rising). My lord, friends, goodbye. (He goes out)

ERNOLD. You’re leaving? I’ve just remembered a magnificent jest; you can’t help laughing at it. Harlequin one evening in a comedy wanted to cheat an old man called Pantalone, so he disguised himself as a Moor, then as a moving statue, then as a ; and at the end of his tricks he beat the good old man with his stick.

LORD COUBRECH (rising). My friend, pray pardon me. I cannot stay longer. (He goes out)

ERNOLD. (to Bonfil). Just see what it means not to have traveled!

BONFIL. Sir, if such things make you laugh, I do not know what to think of you. Surely you do not want me to believe that in Italy intelligent men, men of spirit, laugh at stupidities of this sort. Laughter is proper to man, but all men do not laugh at the same thing. There is a noble form of laughter which arises from a skilful use of words, from clever conceits, from brilliant witticisms. There is also a debased kind of laughter which comes from scurrilities, from stupidities. Forgive me for speaking to you as frankly as I should to a relative, a friend. You have traveled too soon; you should have prepared yourself for your travels by serious study. History, chronology, art, mathematics, philosophy are the subjects most essential for a traveler. Sir, if you had devoted yourself to study before leaving London, you would not have fixed your attention on the pastimes of Vienna, Parisian gallantries and Italy’s Harlequin (Goldoni, 31-33).

What is made obvious here is the contempt for low-class intrigues and physical humor on the late eighteenth-century stage. However Goldoni’s real aim was to disparage 19 improvisation, as there was nothing to be learned from it. These views stem from the

Enlightenment, and as Nicoll explains, “The sentimental comedy and bourgeois tragedy in England, the sweep of the ‘drame’ in France, Goldoni’s reform in Italy, all were parts of one general irresistible movement. It was a serious, a ‘philosophic,’ movement; and quite clearly it looked with disdain and even disgust on any theatrical performances which did not have an educational value”(214). Therefore it is no surprise that the commedia dell’arte fell to its decline, essentially disappearing as this movement was gaining momentum in Europe.

While the late eighteenth century saw the decline of commedia theatre across

Europe, it also marked the third consecutive century of commedia popularity. In France and England Harlequin had leapt off the stage, becoming a solo act at the fairs; he was also increasingly recognized for his symbolic capacity, especially in England. As one of the most popular figures of the 18th century, Harlequin became the porte-parole for various forms of propaganda even though his stage career was, for the meantime, finished. But what a career it had been! Praised for his agility and comic stupidity,

Harlequin proved that he was not just a simple valet, but an indispensible star, an international favorite full of latent wit and immeasurable charm. Harlequin may have disappeared from most European stages in the nineteenth century (with the exception of

France), but he and his entourage weren’t gone for long. As the ideals of the

Enlightenment gave way to the aesthetics of and then Realism/, commedia dell’arte theatre did not reemerge as a vessel of promoting the new of the age until the second stage of the international movement known as .

1 B) Modernism

20

1 B I) The Crisis in Question

The philosophical/artistic movement commonly referred to as Modernism was born out of the insecurities and pessimism that mounted from the increasingly urban, capitalistic and industrialized European societies of the 1870s, and stretched into the throes of the second world war. As explains, in most of Europe this was a period of great turbulence. The governments in France and Spain were not liberal in the contemporary sense or even vis-à-vis Victorian Britain, but the strongest organized political groupings in each country subscribed to such traditionally liberal notions as constitutional government, freedom of opportunity, and protection of some individual liberties (even if Spain was officially a monarchy from 1874 to1931, while France’s

Third Republic was governed by democracy and universal suffrage from 1870-

1940). Improvements in the political conditions of living were connected to improvements in education and health, which found reflection in items like the rise of literacy and the decline of infant mortality. At the same time, the liberal belief in human reason and progress was being undermined by demographical, social, and economic upheavals caused by, among other developments, population booms as well as frequent industrial and financial busts. These were profoundly “modern” times, marked by an increasing amount of political and heretofore unknown insecurities. With the onset of the Great War in 1914, the drift into chaos appeared complete, as it did once again in 1929, with the onset of the Great Depression. In short, no force – and not just

21 liberalism in politics – seemed capable of responding to the problems of the age without making them worse, as nationalism did.2

Returning to the start of this movement, it is initially difficult to understand how the apparent advancements of the age lead to such a crisis of bourgeois identity. It is true that the technological improvements of the age (internal-combustion engine, telephone, incandescent electric light bulb, gramophone, automobile, cinematography, etc.) improved comfort, communications and transport for some, while agricultural production soared, causing decreasing prices for many. Nonetheless European society was on the verge of an economic depression. The flooding of the markets in the agrarian sector proved disastrous for the profitability of farmers, thus amounting to widespread emigration. As Hobsbawm documents, “The 1880s saw the highest ever rates of overseas migration from the countries of the old emigration, and the real start to mass-emigration from such countries as Italy, Spain, Austria-Hungary, to be followed by Russia and the

Balkans.”3 Initially it was this emigration that abated the tensions that lead to mass rebellion, but the real damage had been done: the progress of the bourgeois world was met with drastic economic collapse. With the masses moving to urban centers to try their luck in the industrial sector, world metropolises were becoming the homes to millions of people. By the year 1910 London had a population of over 5 million while Paris had almost 3 million and , two million (Ibid, 59). Artists too were finding the need to reside in urban centers, as artistic exchange proliferated in this milieu, an environment that also communicated the dehumanizing nature of increased urbanization and the alienating direction that society was moving in. Therefore, on one hand there was a

2 See Hobsbawm’s The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991 (1994) p. 7-11. 3 See Hobsbawm’s The Age of Empire: 1875-1914 (1989) p.36 2 2 liberal belief in progress propagated by the , while on the other the artistic movement that put a question mark over it.

The middle class, formed by the non-workers: men in business, upper-level public servants and free professionals, enjoyed a security of wages and a comfortable lifestyle that, by no means, approximated aristocratic wealth, but was far from the socio-economic level of those engaged in manual labor. Among the bourgeoisie in their majority, many of the Modernist writers, artists and philosophers were bankrolled by their families’ middle class economic standing. For example, Rilke and Stefan George’s poetry, Thomas

Mann’s writing, Karl Kraus’ social criticism and Georg Lukacs’ philosophy were all supported by their families’ business; the English novelist, E.M. Forester, who also benefitted from family income, mused, ‘In came the dividends, up went the lofty thoughts’ (Ibid, 185). Nonetheless those ‘lofty thoughts’ at this time centered on an opposition to the ‘progress’ of social modernity and a negation of the bourgeois subject, and therefore Modernism was seen as “the negative other of capitalist-bourgeois and of the ideological space of social harmony demarcated for the bourgeois subject”

(Eysteinsson, 37). This being the case begs the question of why these creative thinkers would turn against the very class that sustained them? Although their motives were manifold and complex, of considerable impact were the circulating at the middle of the nineteenth century that were spearheaded by (1844-

1900) in his war against the thoughts and actions of bourgeois society. Nietzsche avowed the “death of God” in what he saw was a cruel, unjust and absurd world, one in no way governed by rational principles. Modern capitalist bourgeois society promoted rationality and human reason which made man, in Nietzsche’s opinion, unable to develop his human

23 will and instinct, most necessary for “life.” He was preceded by the earlier thought of

Kierkegaard and Hegel, both of which agreed, as Hegel said, that reason “destroys man’s real existence, his ability to decide and his living passion and faith” (Tillich, 308). On similar lines, Marx found the economic order of the times to be dehumanizing: man was now a and therefore estranged from society and the world through his objectification (Ibid, 308). Nietzsche too, in his substitution of God with an idea of “life” that was threatened by this “objectification” brought on by bourgeois social and economic order, condemned the bourgeoisie for their antagonism (Ibid, 308).

These ideas resonated within the intellectual community and fin de siècle creative thinkers were imbued with an anti-materialist sentiment that stemmed from their contempt for “commodification, industrialism, and a mass culture that vulgarizes art and ” (Bretz, 44). Addressing this vulgarization, (1892-1940) explained the impact that the mass reproduction of art and the advent of production had on artists in his 1936 essay, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical

Reproduction.” As technical reproduction reached a level that allowed works to be mass produced, the “aura” of the piece, or its presence in time and space, was lost:

“Reproductive technology, we might say in general terms, removes the thing reproduced from the realm of tradition. In making many copies of the reproduction, it substitutes for its unique incidence a multiplicity of incidences” (Benjamin, 2008, 7). Benjamin finds the poet, Charles Baudelaire (1821-1867), to be the embodiment of these sentiments against the process of commodification of the artist, which Benjamin makes a case for in his The Writer of Modern Life: Essays on Charles Baudelaire. As Baudelaire writes about the intelligentsia going to the marketplace to look around, what they’re really doing

24 is trying to find a buyer; although some still have patrons, their economic position is suffering in this environment of mass reproduction and thus they need to familiarize themselves with the (Benjamin, 40). In his introduction to Benjamin’s work,

Jennings interprets the poet’s (Baudelaire) role as a “producer and purveyor of commodities” giving him a special “empathy with inorganic things” (15). As Baudelaire saturates his poetry with images of “permanent ” he is, in a sense the “secret agent of the destruction of his class” (Jennings, 15). Baudelaire’s role in literary

Modernism will be discussed in more detail in the following section, however what is implicit in this broad analysis of Modernism is that it cannot be judged solely as an aesthetic movement that accompanied a turbulent time period in history, but rather as a

“vehicle of crisis within the ‘progress’ of modernization” (Eysteinsson, 26).

1 B II) Literary Modernism

Charles Baudelaire was the initial poet/writer to incorporate this changing modern landscape into his works. As Graham Hough writes, “Baudelaire is the first modern, the first to accept the de-classed, disestablished position of the poet who is no longer the celebrant of the culture to which he belongs, the first to accept the squalor and baseness of the modern urban scene.”4 References to modernity and modern life populate

Baudelaire’s poetry, and we can see a clear example of the artist facing the modern world in his poem, “Loss of a Halo,” Paris Spleen #46. Presented in the form of a dialogue, the poet bumps into an ordinary man in ‘un mauvais lieu,’ no doubt a brothel or some place its equal. The ordinary man is horrified to see the poet, a man he greatly admires, in a

4 Graham Hough “The Modernist Lyric” Ed. Malcolom Bradbury and James McFarlane. Modernism: 1890- 1930. (1991) p.314 25 place of this sort. Not only that, but the poet is not wearing his halo, the absence of which, the poet explains, occurred when it fell off his head as he was crossing the chaotic boulevard full of horses, vehicles and freshly paved macadam. The ordinary man is intent on the poet retrieving his lost halo, while the poet dismisses the request, relishing in his newfound anonymity and freedom of debauchery, and hoping that some bad poet finds it to no doubt misuse it. There are certain aspects of this poem that highlight the circulating thoughts of the age. For instance, the loss of the halo parallels a loss of God that echoes

Nietzsche’s belief in the “death of God,” and it also parallels the lost sanctity of art, an aristocratic valuation that is quickly crumbling. A even more salient is the reference to the modern scenes of traffic on the new boulevards that traverse the center of

Paris. While Baudlelaire was working on his Paris Spleen, Haussmann and Napoleon III

(during the late 1850s through the 1860s) were cutting networks of boulevards into the medieval enclaves and slums of Paris, thus allowing traffic to flow through the center of the city; forcing Paris to embrace the new efficiencies of transport and allowing businesses to prominently expand and thrive in a centralized location, all classes were affected by the chaos of traffic as they moved through the muck of the macadam

(Berman, 150). These serious themes are downplayed by the comic nature of the poem as the halo rolls through the sludge, which as Marshal Berman points out “evokes , , and the metaphysical pratfalls of Chaplain and Keaton. It points forward to a century whose heroes will come dressed as anti-heroes, and whose most solemn moments of truth will be not only described but actually experienced as clown shows, music-hall or nightclub routines—shticks” (157). However through this comic encounter Baudelaire’s poet makes the startling discoveries that ‘artistic purity’ is not

26 essential to art, that only the ‘bad poet’ doesn’t take the risks of the changing landscape, and that poetry can flourish on the other side of the boulevard just as well, thus signaling that the poet must rededicate his powers to a new kind of art (Ibid, 160). Baudelaire dedicates this poem and many others to subjects of modernity, but that does not make him a Modernist. Modernist literature underwent a crisis of language as well, and in poetry it’s not until Rimbaud’s writing in the 1870s where the Modernist lyric can be traced to initiating an innovative “unpredictable, occasional quality. It is the poetry of a wanderer, arising from none of the time-sanctioned provocations; a poetry of unorthodox celebrations and chance epiphanies.”5 Therefore this example of Baudelaire’s urban poetry stands to demonstrate that themes from modern life are not representative of

Modernist literature, yet it‘s those radical formal innovations that set Modernist writing apart from preceding forms.

The crisis of language that is central to the Modernist movement springs from the other defining crisis thus mentioned, that of the subject. As the modern world moved swiftly towards decadence and decay, art could neither reproduce this ‘fallen world’ nor create an appealing ‘surface’ for it with language that was ‘equally suspect.’6 As Richard

Sheppard discusses, “From this comes the peculiarly modern notion of literary language as ‘autotelic’. Because conventional language is held to be ‘de-potentiated’, ‘de- substantiated’, and hollowed-out, its syntax and vocabulary are rejected as unserviceable...” (328). What this led to in practical use was vers libre in poetry, stream-

5 Graham Hough “The Modernist Lyric” Ed. Malcolom Bradbury and James McFarlane. Modernism: 1890- 1930. (1991) p.314

6 Richard Sheppard “The Crisis of Language” Ed. Malcolom Bradbury and James McFarlane. Modernism: 1890-1930. (1991) p.329 27 of-consciousness narrative in the novel and the emphasis on communication through suggestion in drama.7 Therefore this ‘radical remaking of form’, was meant to bring language closer to chaos as well, in order to produce a sense of ‘formal desperation’ that paralleled the historical turmoil (Ibid, 26). Such devices such as , for example, prompted an ‘inward turn’ in literature, where the exploration of human consciousness, which was not possible in pre-Freudian times, was a central theme of

Modernist writing (Eysteinsson, 26). In France, Maeterlinck, and in Sweden, Strindberg, infused their dramas with topics of ‘inner life’ and the soul, while novelist Paul Bourget’s

Essais de psychologie contemporaine (1883) stimulated interest in these ideas as much as philosopher William James did in English-speaking countries.8 This focus on the internal is more characteristic of early Modernism of the 19th century, whereas in the 20th century the Modernist focus shifts to more external preoccupations.9 These reversals were common throughout the Modernist movement, as Michael Levenson states in A

Genealogy of Modernism, as “Modernism was individualist before it was anti- individualist, anti-traditional before it was traditional, inclined to anarchism before it was inclined to authoritarianism” (Eysteinsson, 27).

As Malcolm Bradbury states in his co-edited volume on Modernism: 1890-1930,

“Realism humanizes, Naturalism scientizes, but Modernism pluralizes and surrealizes”

(99). This plurality can be seen on one hand in these distinct and most often contradictory

7 Malcolm Bradbury and James McFarlane “The Name and Nature of Modernism” Ed. Malcolom Bradbury and James McFarlane. Modernism: 1890-1930. (1991) p. 26. 8 Malcolom Bradbury and James McFarlane, “Movements, Magazines and Manifestos: The Succession From Naturalism.” Ed. Malcolom Bradbury and James McFarlane. Modernism: 1890-1930. (1991) P.193. 9 T.S. Elliot (1888-1965) defined his poetry by its antisubjectivity/impersonality: “Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality.” Thus, “the progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality,” and “it is in this depersonalization that art be said to approach the condition of science.” (Eysteinsson, 27) 28

Modernist themes. In 1893, Hugo von Hofmannsthal observed:

Today, two things seem to be modern: the analysis of life and the flight from

life...One practices anatomy on the inner life of one’s mind, or one dreams.

Reflection or fantasy, mirror image or dream image. Old furniture is modern, and

so are recent neuroses...Paul Bourget is modern, and Buddha; splitting atoms and

playing ball games with the cosmos. Modern is the dissection of a , a sigh, a

scruple; and modern is the instinctive, almost somnambulistic surrender to every

revelation of beauty, to a harmony of colours, to a glittering , to a

wondrous .10

On the other hand, the sheer plurality of sub-movements that are loosely gathered under the banner title of Modernism show that there were many Weltanschauung or worldviews in the creative arts that necessitated a break with tradition in order to make the current artistic wave ‘new’ again. Therefore many late nineteenth-century writers found themselves professing an allegiance to Symbolism, Neo-Romanticism or Decadence, for example. The names of these movements are not, however, a definite indicator of the style, as, for example, what was called Neo-Romanticism in Berlin was referred to as

Impressionism in Vienna; in some circles Symbolism, Neo-Romanticism, Impressionism and Decadence were all considered the same.11 Whatever the title, what is most striking is that the Modernist movement was truly an international one, promoting the same ideologies over a diverse landscape. Stimulated in part by the soaring circulation of newspapers, journals and magazines, the spread of this movement is more so attributed to

10 James McFarlane, “The Mind of Modernism.” Ed. Malcolom Bradbury and James McFarlane. Modernism: 1890-1930. (1991) p. 71. 11 Malcolom Bradbury, “The Cities of Modernism” Ed. Malcolom Bradbury and James McFarlane. Modernism: 1890-1930. (1991) p 198. 29 the ‘cultural emigration’ of ‘creative minds’ spending extended periods of residence abroad and thus prompting a sustained mingling between the various artistic disciplines of literature, painting, music, sculpture etc. (Ibid, 201). Although Paris and later Berlin as well were the main centers of this cultural cross-fertilization, no urban artistic hub was too far to be experienced; with the completion of the Trans-Siberian Railway in 1904, one could travel from Paris to Vladivostok in only 15 days.12 In this climate of artistic exchange of international contemporaries’ works abounded, the majority proving to be high quality, thus European artists and audiences alike were increasingly familiar with multi-cultural contributions (Bradbury, 201). In the early twentieth-century a second phase of Modernism emerged, the Avant-Garde or Neo-Modernist movement that was created in this international environment and that espoused an ‘extreme future- orientation’ and the attempt to “provoke a radical change in society ” (Eysteinsson, 149).

The proponents of this philosophy, still very much affected by those feelings of desperation and pessimism that plagued the early Modernists, branched-off into various sub-movements: Futurism, Dadaism, Surrealism, Imagism, Vorticism, etc. These Avant-

Garde movements produced the highest intensity of Modernist artistic output (High

Modernism), which critics attribute specifically to the years immediately preceding and immediately following the First World War (Ibid, 36). For the purposes of this study, these years of Neo-Modernism are where we initially lay our focus, as in the realm of dramatic literature this is time when the commedia dell’arte theatre springs forth again with widespread intensity.

1 B III) Modernist Theatre

12 Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire: 1875-1914. (1989) p.14. 30

The late nineteenth century saw a major reimagining of the role of theatre in the public view. For one, simply proliferated around Europe. In Spain, Gies finds, the number of theatres went from two at the beginning of the nineteenth century to more than a dozen by the 1880s: the two national or “official” theaters now faced collaborators and competitors in regional as well as local theatres, including several “commercial” venues and “teatros caseros” (Gies, 1994: 351). More importantly perhaps, as Gies argues, there emerged a theatre celebrity culture of sorts driven by new technologies of paper-based reproduction and distribution that led to greatly increased circulation of newspapers and periodicals. The ready availability of regular reporting on key actors, dramatists and singers in the theatre business, in fact, created demand among ever- broader sections of the public for this heretofore art form (Ibid). Also significant to the development of widespread movements, like the commedia dell’arte, was the emergence of the theatre director in the 1930s (Dougherty, 282). These theatre directors followed international trends and staged multiple interpretations of dramatists’ works, thus adding to the exaltation of spectacle and manipulation of written texts. Given that they were not solely in search of economic gain, as they were artists themselves, these directors were more likely to stage even the most experimental of plays. Arguably, later revolutions in radio, advertising, and mass circulation publications expanded the celebrity effect exponentially, in the case of the theatre in general and the commedia dell’arte in specific.

In 1917 the French poet/playwright Guillaume Apollinaire prefaced his play Les

Mamelles de Tirésias (The Breasts of Tiresias) with a message to the audience that they should ready themselves for new theatrical innovations:‘On tente ici d’infuser un esprit

31 nouveau au théâtre’13 Apollinaire envisioned a theatre of ‘uninhibited and voluptuous joy,’ that incorporated techniques from the circus, music halls and ; it was a vision of creating a , or total work of art, within the dramatic arts, which he championed as “The grand deployment of our modern art- merging, without apparent connections as in life, sounds, gestures, colours, cries, noises, music, dancing, acrobatics, poetry, painting, choruses, actions and multiple décor”(Ibid, 562). This idea corresponded to one of the two main strands of theatre that emerged in the wake of the

Neo-Modernism of the early twentieth century. The first strand incorporated new methods of staging, the embracing of early theatrical (Greek tragedy, medieval farce and peasant ) and this previously mentioned aggregate of art forms; the second strand focused on the reality of illusion, which Pirandello in Italy popularized to the greatest extent in his works. What both of these strands had in common was their use of masks, and given that the commedia dell’arte was not only an early theatrical tradition but itself a Gesamtkunstwerk in its use of music, dance, dialogue and masks, it lent itself perfectly to the emerging vision of Modernist theatre.

1 C) Objectives and potential significance of the project

The commedia dell’arte played a significant role in the . It has been adapted by nearly every generation across the globe since its beginnings, given its cross-cultural adaptability, richness of symbolism and pageantry. Modernist theatre practitioners, specifically the directors and dramatists whose works are the subject of this study, adapted commedia dell’arte elements and characters into their plays/productions, principally in order to reject the prosaic effects that Realism and Naturalism had on

13 John Fletcher and James McFarlane “Modernist Drama: Origins and Patterns” Ed. Malcolom Bradbury and James McFarlane. Modernism: 1890-1930. (1991) p.561. 32 drama. Thus, in rediscovering early forms of theatre, like the commedia dell’arte, they restored fantasy and theatricality to the stage. This term, theatricality, was used widely by proponents of the anti-Realist movement, along with other slogans such as stylization, conventionality and poetic drama, in order to emphasize the valorization of artistry and elevation of spectacle, which were central objectives of the (Moody, 859).

My initial aim in the writing of this dissertation is to demonstrate how the commedia dell’arte was adapted and transformed to communicate the ideas that were at the heart of the European Modernist movement. In doing so I begin the next chapter by surveying the commedia-inspired works of dramatists and theatre directors in several

European countries. However, in this survey I exclude mention of Spanish Modernist dramas that highlight commedia dell’arte theatre. For reasons I will discuss in the third chapter, , both European and Spanish, has tended not to evaluate Spanish literature written during the Modernist period (roughly 1890s-1930s) in the larger transnational scope of the movement. This practice has been challenged of late, and many recent studies [Soufas (1996), Cardwell (1997), Mainer/Garcia (1997), Geist/Monleón

(1999), Bretz (2001), Kirkpatrick (2003), and Johnson (2003)] demonstrate how Spanish literature during this period shares both broad and specific characteristics of Modernist

European literature. In my own evaluation of the appropriation of commedia dell’arte theatre by Spanish dramatists of this era, I too have observed multiple and significant parallels with the objectives/traits of the European Modernist movement, and am now able to add these examples to the discussion which has been started. To begin with, both

European and Spanish Modernist depictions of commedia dell’arte theatre include salient themes of pessimism, escapism and dehumanized , which are proven to

33 be a response to the dramatic political environment and the technological and social advances at and around of the century. In so being, the “Modernized” commedia dell’arte characters can be regarded as stewards of this new age, as they communicate these themes through their personalities and actions. Therefore, in addition to making comparisons with the European dramas showcased in chapter two, I evaluate the specific themes and structures of various commedia-based Spanish plays that marry them to the

European Modernist movement.

Once Spanish participation in the transnational appropriation of commedia theatre is established I am able to explore my primary research question, which centers on the

Harlequin figure. In my analysis of commedia-based Spanish dramas, I have discovered that in five of these plays the Harlequin is depicted as a poet. Given that Harlequin is the traditional Italian buffoon and “scheming servant,” I set out to determine why these

Spanish dramatists depict him in this light. My investigation leads me to determine the impact that 19th century French Symbolist poetry had in crafting these dramas by Jacinto

Benavente, Gregorio Martínez Sierra, and Ramón del Valle-Inclán, and secondly, evaluate what it meant to be a Modernist poet in order to uncover the role that Harlequin plays as an apparent porte-parole of the Modernist sensibility. In doing so, I hope to illuminate in these dramatic works the Modernist qualities which supersede any notion of the plays being purely revivalist renderings of commedia theatre, as these “immortal” characters become relevant, yet again, for another generation.

1 D) Review of existing literature

As previously mentioned, the commedia dell’arte was an that began in the 16th century and wasn’t incorporated into literature until the 18th

34 century, principally by the Italian , , Carlo Goldoni, and Carlo

Gozzi. The Italian actor, Luigi Riccoboni (1676-1753), was the first to attempt an academic study of the commedia dell’arte; Riccoboni was, similar to these Italian playwrights, opposed to the effect that improvisation had on the quality of commedia performance, and therefore promoted it as an intellectual art form (Clayton, 17). A century passed before Maurice Sand popularized the commedia dell’arte again with the circulation of his book, Masques et bouffons (1860), that in turn inspired a number of publications on the subject at the start of the twentieth century. Considered among the most important contributions to this little-studied (at the time) field were Pierre

Duchartre’s The Italian Comedy (1924), Constantin Mic’s “La commedia dell’arte”

(1927), Kathleen Lea’s “Italian Popular Comedy” (1934) and the many articles that

Gordon Craig published from primary sources in his journal, The Mask (1908-1927)

(Lorch, 297). Researching the commedia dell’arte in the twenty-first century, the number of comprehensive studies on the subject is vast; however, in being that the early studies are written principally by non-Italians, who interpret the commedia dell’arte many times through “foreign” transformations, it is difficult truly to determine what aspects of commedia theatre are “original.” In specific reference to the Harlequin figure, Allardyce

Nicoll’s The World of Harelquin: A Critical Study of the Commedia dell’arte (1963), is very thorough in its depiction of the commedia dell’arte from its beginning stages to the transformations it undergoes abroad. However Nicoll’s study does not examine

Harlequin’s presence in Europe past the beginning of the 19th century.

The most extensive investigation into Modernist renderings of commedia theatre across Europe is James Fisher’s The Theatre of Yesterday and Tomorrow: Commedia

35

Dell’Arte on the Modern Stage (1992). Another well-researched study that specifically analyses Modernist Russian commedia-based literature as it relates to the widespread phenomenon in Europe, is Douglas Clayton’s in Petrograd: Commedia dell’Arte

/Balagan in Twentieth-Century Russian Theatre and Drama. In regard to the consideration of commedia-based drama in Spain, Fisher’s chapter on the subject is by far the most underdeveloped of the countries he studies (with the exception of “Eastern

Europe” and “Scandinavia”), especially given the number of Spanish plays inspired by the commedia (as evidenced in the comparison of works documented in chapters 3 and 4 with those of chapter 2). Filling this gap left by Fisher, is the David George’s The History of the Commedia Dell’arte in Modern Hispanic Literature with Special Attention to the

Work of Garcia Lorca (1995).14 In it George organizes his study around specific themes in Modernist Spanish-Hispanic renderings of commedia-based literature. In his analysis he does not discuss15 the plays: El Señor de Pigmalión by Jacinto Grau; Hechizo de amor and Las golondrinas by Martínez Sierra, Arlequí Vividor by Adrià Gual, Los cuernos de don Friolera, by Valle-Inclán and Drama en un bazar by E. Ramírez Ángel, that are included in my study. George does, however, compare the three Harlequin figures in

Benavente’s “Cuento de primavera,” Los intereses creados, and la cuidad alegre y confiada in his article “The commedia dell’arte and the Circus in the Work of Jacinto

Benavente” (1981). Nonetheless, George does not extend this discussion to include other depictions of Harlequin as a poet in Spanish Modernist drama, and he only briefly

14 Given that I primarily reference these two by David George and James Fisher, I do not cite them with their publication year. Therefore all of these authors that include the year refer to other articles by Fisher and by Geroge. 15 George does mention El Señor de Pigmalión and Drama en un bazar by title, but does not analyze them. 36 mentions the influence of French Symbolist poetry on Benavente’s work, and more so as it relates to Benavente’s interest in the circus.

In researching doctoral and masters theses that evaluate the commedia dell’arte theatre as it appears in Modernist literature, two are relevant: Gerardo Ávila Hesles’

“Arlequín y Polichinela, Valle-Inclán y García Lorca: Estudio comparativo, histórico y literario sobre la commedia dell’arte y los títeres” (masters), and Wallis Urmenyhazi’s

“Arlequin porte-parole de la philosophie du siècle des lumieres” (doctoral). Gerardo

Ávila Hesles provides a cursory investigation into Modernist Spanish drama’s inclusion of commedia dell’arte theatre, by providing a brief history of the commedia and then analyzing the Harlequin figure in Valle-Inclán’s La marquesa Rosalinda, and comparing him to the Polichinela character in some of García Lorca’s plays. In doing so he studies the motives behind these two playwrights’ use of puppets and puppet characters in their plays. Urmenyhazi’s dissertation centers on three varied depictions of Harlequin in

French theatre during the 18th century, that are indicative of the socio-economic, political and philosophical concerns of the times; they are: Arlequin, bon savage; Arlequin, valet; and Arlequin, amant. This study gives my own added relevance, given that Harlequin has been used across centuries to interpret the mentalité of his times.

1 E) Theoretical framework and methodology

The commedia dell’arte is a challenging semiotic system since it began as an improvisational art, with no reliance on written texts. However, the most apparent system of signs in the commedia is the system of masks and images. This creates a dynamic that is easily transferable to any culture, since all cultures have their own stereotypes. Therefore, in essence, commedia performance is political in nature and rich

37 in symbolism. The dramas that are the focus of this study are analyzed solely on the basis of their written texts without any mention of individual performance aspects. Citing

Kowzan, Umberto Eco takes the position, as do I, that, “The object of theatrical is the performance, or the mise-en-scène, not the literary text” (Eco, 108). Scholars such as Freytag and Gremais have studied dramatic action through narrative structures; however, in this study the research objective is to subject the commedia dell’arte to literary history, even though this methodology has both advantages and limitations.

Comprehensive literary histories may be “impossible” to write, since one is always dealing with a large and sparsely connected amount of material that cannot, in all instances, be unified into a single and integrated interpretation of literature (Johnstone

1992). At the same time, they are necessary since they constitute a proven method through which students of literature can reconstruct past context and meaning in order to help understand both the density and interconnection in the production of literary works of specific times and spaces (Perkins, 1992). For the purposes of this study, providing a literary history is essential in piecing together how Spanish literature can be viewed in a

European context, given that it has generally been studied in isolation. Since the mid- twentieth century, critics in Spain have divided the study of their turn-of-the-century literature into two movements, modernismo and the “Generation of 1989.” This has lead to a limited evaluation of the literature with no mention of its inclusion in the larger transnational movement of European Modernism. Therefore, in order to compensate for this exclusion that past literary criticism has taken, I find it necessary to frame this study as a literary history in order to generate a broader portrayal of the Modernist movement.

1 F) Chapter overview and theoretical background

38

1 F I) Chapter 2: “Here we are again!”

The second chapter provides the historical context in which commedia-based theatre was rediscovered and then proliferated across Europe from, roughly, 1890-1930.

Motivated, in part, by a desire to rebel against the dominant Realist aesthetic, many of these dramatists and theatre directors found in the fantastic elements of commedia dell’arte theatre an escape from the realities of civil unrest and mounting international tensions that led ultimately to The Great War. Thus, in providing an overview of how and to what end commedia theatre was recreated by Modernist theatre practitioners, I study the countries with the most significant contributions to the motif: Italy, England, Russia, and France, while also briefly mentioning Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the United

States. Moreover, given the emergence of the theatre director during this period, my analysis of these countries also focuses on the theories and commedic elements (ie: improvisation and metatheatre) that led to these directors’ interest in the , thus causing its global spread through their travels and cross-cultural exchange. Among the most prominent of these theatre directors were: in England,

Meyerhold in Russia, Reinhardt in Germany-Austria, and Copeau in France. I conclude then, by describing how their contributions to Modernist renderings of commedia dell’arte theatre, along with European dramatists, created a lasting tradition of commedia- based entertainment that continues to this day.

1 F II) Chapter 3: “‘Other’ Modernist Manifestations: Commedia dell’Arte in Spain”

Chapter 3 begins by exploring the reasons why Spanish literature has been excluded from literary criticism on European Modernism. Given that this practice is both perpetuated inside of Spain (adopting a generational approach to literary criticism that

39 supports national preoccupations) and outside (Europe traditionally views Spain as

“other” given its racial distinction based on centuries of multiculturalism) I support the more recent criticism that links Spanish turn-of-the-century literature to the European

Modernist movement. I use the renovation of commedia dell’arte theatre in Spanish drama, as experienced in the rest of Europe, to make this case, beginning with the role of

Jacinto Benavente as the first Modernist playwright to incorporate the commedia dell’arte motif into his dramas. Organizing the remainder of the chapter into three sections, I analyze the “farces and pantomime plays” of Jacinto Benavente, Gregorio Martínez

Sierra, Adrià Gual, and Pio Baroja, the “Modernist Spanish puppetry” of Jacinto Grau,

Ramón del Valle-Inclán, E. Ramírez Ángel and Federico García Lorca, and in

“Modernist and beyond,” the Avant-Garde works of García Lorca that signal a close to the Modernist movement.

1 F II) Chapter 4: “Harlequin, Poet”

In Chapter 4, I center my analysis on the depictions by Spanish playwrights:

Benavente, Martínez Sierra and Valle-Inclán, of Harlequin as a poet. In order to understand the motivations behind the of the traditional Harlequin- buffoon as a poet, I begin my investigation by evaluating this shared motif in nineteenth- century French Symbolism, specifically in the works of the French poets Verlaine and

Banville. I then incorporate these findings into my analysis of the figure of Harlequin- poet in five Spanish plays: Benavente’s “Cuento de primavera,” Los intereses creados,

La ciudad alegre y confiada; Martínez Sierra’s Hechizo de amor; and Valle-Inclán’s La marquesa Rosalinda. Orienting the themes expressed in these Spanish dramas in a

European context, I conclude by expressing what it meant to be a Modernist poet at this

40 time in order to uncover the messages that these playwrights were trying to convey on a personal and artistic level.

41

Chapter 2: Here we are again! 16

“Arlecchino is immortal and (sic) can never die. Their spangled jackets and waving skirts are a mere mortal livery, for they are ideas, not material beings; they are mirrors which reflect the life around them and the sunlight about them and the laughter and movement and folly and wisdom and love and gaiety and tears of life as well in the twentieth century as the sixteenth, but which render no dull photographic reproduction of actuality, but a vision of life all silvered over with laughter and coloured with romance.”17 – Edward Gordon Craig

Writing during the early twentieth century, Edward Gordon Craig’s fascination with the commedia dell’arte’s characters as universal was echoed by many of his international contemporaries, whose disciplines ranged from acting, stage direction, dance, art, film and literature, among the most prominent. However, this fascination with the centuries-old genre did not reemerge by chance encounter; there was no quadricentennial commemorating the commedia dell’arte that revived awareness about the theatrical form, nor was it a commedia troop on an international tour that stirred inspiration. That which guided these artists back to the Italian commedia was largely brought on by their rejection of the then current theatrical aesthetic of Realism (and

16 This line was a key declaration by Clown, during performances of 17th and 18th century English pantomime, which developed there as a variation of commedia dell’arte. Although mostly a silent mime performance with some music and dance, a transformation scene initiated by a fairy would mark the part of the pantomime called the where Clown and Harlequin played key , while employing some dialogue. For more on English pantomime during this period see John O’Brien’s Harlequin Britain. 17 Craig, Edward Gordon, “Critics Criticised,” The Mask, Vol V., No 2, October 1912, p.182. 42

Naturalism), causing them to seek forms that embodied the exact opposite approach.

Therefore the turn of the century witnessed many a theatre practitioner embracing the pure theatricality and whimsy of the multifaceted commedia dell’arte.

Examining this resurgence across Europe during the Modernist movement, roughly 1890-1930, it becomes clear that there was no single event that launched the commedia dell’arte’s revival. Commedia scholar, Ferdinando Taviani, attributes its beginning to George Sand’s experimentation with commedia dell’arte theatre in 1846, which lead her son, Maurice Sand, to publish his popular book about commedia characters, Masques et bouffons: Comédie Italienne, in 1860 (Lorch, 304). Others point to its roots in French Romanticism’s usage of commedia dell’arte , such as the moonstruck representation of Pierrot, and also in French Symbolist poetry18 (Clayton, 8).

Susan Harrow connects the continued revitalization of the commedia to the Modernist’s pessimism brought on by war:

The sense of pessimism which overtakes the modern sensibility is the comfortless refuge of the artist whose confidence in the new century is broken by the events of 1914-1918 (…) In an age dominated by the consciousness of life’s absurdity, of its non-sense, the artist turns to the consciously absurd – to comic shows and pantomime arts – in his search for a structured space in which to play out his obsessions and desires (Harrow, 200).

In a similar vein, Starobinski reminds us that “la culture la plus avancée, qui se croit extenuée, cherche une source d’énergie dans la primitive” (the most advanced culture, which believes itself to be worn-out, looks for a source of energy in primitivism)

18 As David George points out in his book The History of the Commedia Dell’Arte in Modern Hispanic Literature..., “it is Pierrot who predominates in the early years of the twentieth, which tends to confirm that French influence was at work.” p.17 43

(George, 16). Therefore, albeit somewhat reinstated by French usage in the nineteenth century, the Modernist revival’s theatre practitioners were destined to look back to the commedia dell’arte in their search for the histrionics and that would satiate their artistic and political (or rather anti-political) appetite.

It is my belief that commedia dell’arte theatre is, at its core, a socio-political theatre. With the disrespect of the upper strata of society (grotesque physical characteristics and consistent cuckolding of the Pantalones and Pulchinellas), the idiocy and corruption of the professionals (Dottore), cowardliness of the military (Capitano), and the cunning of the servants (Arlecchino, Colombina, Brighella and Pedrolino-

Pierrot), the result is almost carnivalesque. It is true that scarcely a stock-character evades comic criticism through characterizations of this kind (even the lovers have the most shallow relationships), but those with money and power are never the ones that find love or happiness. Therefore, in appropriating the commedia system one cannot avoid the embedded socio-political message; however, politics are largely absent from the

Modernist revival of commedia works. This comes as a surprise, given that the end of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century witnessed the devastating impacts of multiple monumental wars at a time when Europeans were expanding their interests at a global scale. International competition for new markets and national prestige had led to a series of colonial confrontations - the Spanish-American War being a paradigmatic case of those - that culminated in the Great War of 1914-8.19 In addition to facing rivals abroad, European states were also forced to confront rapidly industrializing societies at home. New social, economic and political ideas, coupled with changes in technologies of

19 See Eric Hobsbawm’s The Age of Empire: 1875–1914, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd, 1987. 44 transportation and communication, were colliding with old systems of rule, resulting in different forms of civil disobedience- the most radical being revolutions like the one in

Russia in 1917. This opened the door for the "age of extremes" - monumental twentieth- century clashes between and among , fascism, and liberal democracy.20

Therefore I agree with Susan Harrow’s hypothesis about the continued interest in the commedia genre being a reaction to the absurdities of life, where the Modernist artist turns to the “consciously absurd” through “comic shows and pantomime arts” as, in my opinion, a means of escapism. Hence, the commedia dell’arte’s “timeless qualities” and

“lack of historical specificity” causes its widespread appreciation by writers and directors of the period (George, 169).

Among some of the most celebrated directors of Europe during this period- Luigi

Pirandello in Italy, Edward Gordon Craig in England, Vsevolod Meyerhold in Russia,

Max Reinhardt in Germany/Austria, and in France- all had broken with the Realist aesthetic, and found in the commedia dell’arte a more fanciful and symbolic means of expression. Apart from Craig, who had studied the commedia with scholarly dedication, and , who was well-versed in his Italian commedic tradition, most European Modernist directors, actors and playwrights absorbed commedic techniques into their productions through highly individual and sometimes incongruous manners. This was most likely due to the scarcity of written and translated literature about the nature of commedia performance available at the beginning of the twentieth century. Therefore in its Modernist usage the commedia dell’arte techniques were reconstructed through an amalgamation of “traditional Italian improvised comedy, as

20 See Ibid. The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991, New York: Vintage, 1994.

45 well as its many farces, the comedies of Molière, the Venetial plays of Goldoni, the fiabe of Gozzi, Pierrot in the tradition of Deburau, pantomimes, , circus, , street entertainments of all kinds, and the variety stage”(Fisher, 10).21 However as international interest in this theatrical form increased so did the scholarship in the field, evidenced by some important contributions: Edward Gordon Craig dedicated several articles in his periodical, The Mask (1908-1927); Duchartre published “The Italian

Comedy,” in 1924; Constantin Mic’s “La commedia dell’arte” appeared in 1927, followed by Kathleen Lea’s “Italian Popular Comedy” in 1934 (Lorch, 297).

As we examine the Modernist theories, performance aspects and literary dramas that drew their inspiration from commedia dell’arte theatre, we travel around Europe, starting in Italy, moving across England, Russia, Germany/Austria, and France, and then concluding in Eastern Europe and the United States. Although each is regarded separately, it should be clear that there was an incredible amount of exchange among countries, as they staged each-other’s translated plays, studied each other’s theories, traveled to conferences or personal gatherings to exchange ideas, and attended each other’s productions. Of course the commedia’s transcendence of language and culture through its stock characters, masks, costumes, dramatic scenarios, plays-within-a-play, acrobatics and musical exuberance, made it the perfect vessel for international theatre, thus contributing another chapter to the “immortal” commedia dell’arte.

2 A) Italy

As the commedia dell’arte splashed water on its face and arose from almost a century’s long slumber, it was only their brethren and sistren, their fellow Italians, who

21 Unless indicated by a year, all cited text of James Fisher refers to his 1992 book: The Theatre of Yesterday and Tomorrow: Commedia dell’Arte on the Modern Stage. 46 gave but just a nod to their return, foregoing any pomp or warm embrace. And although the commedia’s revival did not leap to new heights on Italian soil, a noteworthy contribution in the form of an was, quite possibly, the most significant. Apart from the aforementioned sources of this European commedia revival, found in French symbolist poetry and the contributions of George and Maurice Sand, it was Ruggero

Leoncavallo’s I (The Players) that truly started the beating pulse of the

Modernist commedia dell’arte phenomenon. Performed for the first time in Milan in

1892, I Pagliacci swept across the European stages with its appropriate-for-the-times framework of realism yet freshly colored with commedia dell’arte flair.

This opera pertained to the Italian form of realism known as , a minor genre of the period, characterized by violent encounters between plebeian characters—or a “slice of life,” the character Tonio announces in the prologue to I Pagliacci.22 Through the course of the narrative we see the overarching theme to be that of life imitating art, as the itinerant thespians lose themselves to the cuckolding and love lust that so befalls the characters that they animate on the stage. Canio, the master of the troupe and husband to

Nedda, becomes crazed with jealousy when he overhears his wife directing amorous words to her apparent lover as he is exiting. Unable to shake the name of this man from

Nedda’s lips, the hour proves late and Canio must ready himself for the evening’s performance as the townspeople begin to gather. In his most touching soliloquy he

22 See Alan Mallach’s book, The Autumn of : From Verismo to Modernism, 1890-1915, pages 42-46 for a critique on verismo. 47 bemoans the of his wife’s infidelity as he prepares himself to play the cuckolded

Pierrot23, opposite Nedda’s unfaithful Colombina:

To act, with my heart saddened with sorrow. I know not what I’m saying or what I’m doing. Yet I must face it. Courage my heart! Thou art not a man ; thou’rt but a ! On with the motley, the paint and the powder, The people pay thee, and want their laugh, you know. If Harlequin thy Columbine has stolen, Laugh Punchinello!24 The world will cry “Bravo!” Go hide with laughter thy tears and thy sorrow, Sing and be merry, playing thy part, Laugh Punchinello, for thy love that is ended, Laugh for the sorrow that is eating thy heart. (Act I, Scene IV)

Canio assumes his role as a clown, suppressing his ego and rage for those willowy emotions characteristic of Pierrot. However as he watches Nedda’s Colombina speak those same amorous words to Harlequin that he heard her say earlier to her lover, he can no longer separate reality from farce. To the horror of the audience he draws his dagger and kills Nedda and then her lover, Silvio, who rushes to her aid. “The comedy is ended,”

Canio says, as he drops his knife to the floor (Act II, Scene II).

23 To reduce confusion, I will be referring to all commedia dell’arte stock characters (with the exception of Harlequin and Pierrot) by their Italian names, unless referring to the specific character from a play, in which case the name will appear in letters. 24 The reference to the Italian commedia stock character, Pierrot, has been translated to English as Punchinello in the following edition: Leoncavallo, Ruggero. “I Pagliacci.” The Opera Library. New York: Avenel Books, 1980. Note that in the original Italian, Canio refers to his character as Pagliaccio. However, Puncinello resembles the name of the commedia dell’arte character, Pulchinela, and therefore should not be confused with Pierrot, who is widely accepted and documented as being the stock character that Canio represents. 48

Leoncavallo could not claim in creating this storyline, as it shares a similar form used by both Spanish and French dramatists. The plot has close ties with

Manuel Tamayo y Baus’ Un drama nuevo (1867) and Catulle Mendès’ play La femme de

Tabarin (1874). In both of these works, the lead actor blurs the line between reality and farce in a play-within-a-play which ends tragically for the unfaithful lovers.

However what I Pagliacci does showcase through music, bright costumes and acrobatic, exaggerated actions is a sense of theatricality that not only refreshes this tired storyline, but also adds color to the dominant constructs of realism. This proves to be a winning combination as the opera reached international success on the European stage, thus also promoting the commedia dell’arte brand.

Therefore it is no wonder that several publications on the commedia dell’arte appear at the beginning of the twentieth century. Moreover, in 1934 the Volta

Conference25 dedicated its theme to “Il teatro dramatico” where the emergence of commedia dell’arte in Modernist theatre was of much debate among the international theatrical community in attendance. Again, it was the Italians who were the most circumspect when discussing this topic. During the conference the playwright Renato

Simoni interposed the discussion:

Once again, I’ve been listening to talk about the Commedia dell’arte. I want there to be a clear understanding on this point. The Commedia dell’arte provided a show in which there was much to admire, but also much to reject. It evoked wonder not for its content, which was essentially crude and often plebeian and immodest, but for the ability of its actors. It is an old and deplorable mistake to

25 Funded by the Alessandro Volta Foundation, the Volta Conferences were held in Italy during the years between the two World Wars, and were sponsored by the Royal Academy of Science in Rome. Every year the theme of the conference would alternate between a topic either in science or the humanities. 49

refer to the Commedia dell’arte as if it were a world of strange poetry; and it is necessary to distinguish between its scenari which in themselves tell us nothing and can teach us nothing and its actors whose art dazzled the world and who still have a lot to teach us (Lorch, 310).

Simoni praises the commedia dell’arte actor, but rejects the unenlightened content. This viewpoint was similarly noted earlier by the Italian novelist, Matilde Serao, while lecturing in 1895 on “Carlo Gozzi e la fiaba”:

[…] the revival of the Commedia dell’arte, however minimal, even if reduced to a very brief appearance, or inserted merely for theatrical effect and moral contrast, can only be deemed an act of literary destruction from an author’s perspective. Commedia dell’arte is the wayward improvisation by bright actors who have no desire to follow the thoughts of another, that is, the thoughts of the author; it is the whim of those who appear on the stage and seek to cover over an old and faded plot with the illusory colours of natural acting; it is the substitution of the personal consciousness of the actor for the certainly higher and nobler consciousness of the author. Not just one step backwards along the path of art, but most assuredly, a thousand steps backwards! (Lorch, 310).

Both Simoni and Serao were joined by their national and international contemporaries in agreeing that the commedia dell’arte was an actor’s theater, with improvisation being its most striking characteristic; however from this point emerged a clear divide. The majority of Italians found improvisation to generate insipid language, whereas the rest of the international community was overwhelmed with the exciting possibilities that improvisation provided as they sought ‘purity’ and ‘theatricality’ in their theatres (Lorch,

299).

Vacillating between these viewpoints was the Italian dramatist, Luigi Pirandello

(1867-1936), who is regarded as the most prominent Italian playwright of the early 20th 50 century. His belief that the author is the true creator of theater was congruent with the

Italian perspective, although he willingly admitted that “many bad plays have become excellent by what the actors have created” (Fisher, 154, 1998). Pirandello also went a step further, trying to bridge the gap between actor and author, in stating that “Commedia is born, on the contrary, out of authors, who are so deeply involved in the Theater, in the life of the Theater, as to become, in fact, actors; who begin by writing the comedies they later perform” (Pirandello, 24, 1964). As for his thoughts on improvisation, he favored the attitudes of his other European contemporaries, in being that his ideal in theatrical creation most closely resembled the improvisation of the commedia dell’arte. These views on commedia and improvisation associated his name with the Modernist commedia revival. However, some scholars disagree with there being any comparison between

Pirandello’s theater and the commedia dell’arte scenarios and characteristics; among them is the Italian theater critic and theorist, Silvio d’Amico, who complained about this association at the Volta Conference (Lorch, 297). Another scholar, Antonio Alessio, also sides with d’Amico in stating that this form of improvised comedy had no impact on

Pirandello’s plays. Alessio notes that the title of Pirandello’s play, Tonight we improvise, proffers the illusion of the commedia’s influence, but that really Pirandello “takes a totally opposite road to that of the commedia dell’arte” (Alessio, 299). In his article,

“Pirandello and the commedia dell’arte,” Alessio sets out to support this statement in first remembering that the commedia dell’arte was “pure entertainment” and that it did not aspire to be a “clear mirror of life” yet rather a “free manifestation of the spirit”

(300). However, Pirandello believed that the content of the theatre “must respond to the particular spirit which animates our times in every field,” and therefore for him “art must

51 always be a clear reflection of life” (Alessio, 301). Secondly, although Pirandello advocated the use of masks (even though he favored make-up and lighting effects as a substitute for them in his own works) Alessio claims that the mask “consecrates the fixity of characters,” a characteristic that Pirandello rejected. This opinion is not shared by commedia scholar, James Fisher, who describes the mask as a “tangible symbol” for one of Pirandello’s core themes: “the conflict between illusion and reality” (154, 1998).

Emerging from this theme is Pirandello’s most noteworthy play: Six Characters in Search of an Author (1921). The premise is straightforward: interrupting a stage rehearsal, in walk 6 characters searching for, well, an author. Not initially suspending all semblance of reality, the producer and actors on stage are put-off by the characters’ claims and forcefulness while acting out the scenes that introduce, demonstrate the conflict and eventually reach the climax of their family tragedy. Their story was conceived by an author in his head and never committed to paper, therefore they are desirous of finding one. These characters, we learn, are a father, a mother and their son, also accompanied by the three children born to the mother and a recently deceased man.

Not only do these characters woo their primary and secondary audiences with the complexities of their conflict and tragedy, they also bring to question the possibility of reality in the theatre. In the play there is mention of the commedia dell’arte as the

PRODUCER tries to direct his actors in recreating the drama that the characters to him:

LEADING ACTOR. Is he serious? What’s he going to do? YOUNG ACTOR. I think he’s gone round the bend. ANOTHER ACTOR. Does he expect to make up a play in five minutes? YOUNG ACTOR. Yes, like the old actors in the commedia del’arte! 52

LEADING ACTRESS. Well if he thinks I’m going to appear in that sort of nonsense… YOUNG ACTOR. Nor me. FOURTH ACTOR. I should like to know who they are. THIRD ACTOR. Who do you think? They’re probably escaped lunatics or crooks. YOUNG ACTOR. Is he taking them seriously? YOUNG ACTRESS. It’s vanity. The vanity of seeing himself as an author. LEADING ACTOR. I’ve never heard of such a thing! If the theatre, ladies and gentlemen, is reduced to this…26

Therefore this play-within-a-play, “improvised” by the PRODUCER’s actors, exhibits commedic elements in the plot. Moreover, in his description of the characters that preface the play, Pirandello calls for the six characters’ use of masks in order to differentiate themselves from the other actors: “The masks are designed to give the impression of figures constructed by art, each one fixed for ever in its own fundamental emotion; that is, Remorse for the FATHER, Revenge for the STEPDAUGHTER, Scorn for the SON,

Sorrow for the MOTHER” (Pirandello, 10). Here we see Pirandello embracing the mask, using it as both a metaphor and a theatrical device. James Fisher, in bolstering his argument for the influence of the commedia dell’arte on Pirandello’s early works, also suggests the characters’ resemblance to the commedia stock characters: “the

Stepdaughter is the inamorata, the Father is Pantalone, and the Actors and Actresses are the zanni” (Fisher, 34). These are, if anything, loose associations with the stock characters, yet they signal the universality of the commedia stereotypes.

26 Pirandello, Luigi.“Six Characters in Search of an Author.” Trans. John Linstrum. London: Methuen Publishing 2004. 53

That said, comparisons between Pirandello’s characters and commedia stock characters are not uncommon. Discussing Pirandello’s play Right You Are If You Think

You Are (1917), the translator of the play, Eric Bentley, describes the main character,

Lamberto Laudisi, as a “Harlequin in modern dress, a Harlequin who has invaded the realm of philosophy, and who behaves there as he had behaved elsewhere” (Bentley, 29).

In another of Pirandello’s plays, Cap and Bells (1917), Fisher remarks that the playwright has “combined aspects of Pantalone and Arlecchino in the character Ciampa, who is both a scheming servant (in this case a bank employee) and a deceived elderly husband”

(Fisher 27). Whether it can be said that Pirandello was influenced by this renewal of interest in the commedia dell’arte, what is undeniable is his admiration for the theatrical genre. With his own theatre company, the Teatro D’Arte, he staged plays by many

European playwrights including a commedia dell’arte play, The Merry Death, by his

Russian contemporary, Evreinov. It is also said that he encouraged his actors to improvise during rehearsals, which undoubtedly he borrowed with the current commedia renaissance on his mind. Pirandello may not have embraced the commedia dell’arte in his works to the degree of that of his other European contemporaries, but he was an advocate of the revivalist spirit, or the “modernizing” of theatrical traditions. He believed that the theatre “is not archaeology” and that “unwillingness to take up old works, to modernize and streamline them for fresh production, betrays indifference, not praiseworthy caution.

The Theater welcomes such modernization and has profited by it throughout those ages when it was most alive.” In this vein, Pirandello reminds his readers that “a work of art is no longer the work of the writer (which, after all, can always be preserved in some other

54 way), but an act of life, realized on the stage from one moment to the next, with the cooperation of an audience that must find satisfaction in it” (Pirandello, 27, 1964).

In Italy, a handful of playwrights, namely, Luigi Chiarelli, Enrico Cavacchioli and

Guiseppe Adami, experimented with commedia plots and characters, but none reached

Pirandello’s level of theatricalism and incorporation of commedia dell’arte techniques.

Otherwise the early twentieth-century Italian theater saw little permutation from the tired plots repeated again and again on its stages. However this was not the case in other countries, where the commedia dell’arte revival was fostering innovation on many levels of theatrical production.

2 B) England

“I am strongly inclined to think that the Theatre of Europe is the Italian Theatre” 27 -Edward Gordon Craig

The Modernist revival of the commedia dell’arte at the beginning of the twentieth century can hardly be discussed without mention of Edward Gordon Craig (1872-1966).

Born to the actress, , and the architect, Edward Godwin, Craig was raised amid a theatrical backdrop, his parents’ professions greatly shaping his own future career.

Becoming a renowned actor like his mother, he later gave up acting to focus on stage design and to theorize about new directions in theatre. It is of little surprise then, that he found the commedia dell’arte to be his greatest inspiration in this aim. However, what sets Craig apart from his international contemporaries was his scholarly regard of the

27 This phrase is taken from Craig’s unpublished manuscript entitled “European Theatre from 1500 to 1900,” which can be found at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. In it he praises the theatrical of the Italians, and remarks on how he should rather have titled his book “The History of the Italian Theatre,” concluding, “I am strongly inclined to think that the Theatre of Europe is the Italian Theatre.”

55 commedia. While most Modernists appropriated the commedia style in their theatres with the general understanding that it was a prismatic remedy to the lackluster quality of

Naturalism, Craig was fascinated with the early, unadulterated history of the codifiable art form.

Gordon Craig rose to fame in the international theatrical community through the spread of his publications. Author of nine books on staging, two studies on acting, an autobiography, five books on stage designs and three periodicals, he was an inspiration to many of his contemporaries on how to successfully propagate emerging ideas (Innes,

215). In one of his most famous books, On the Art of Theatre, an imaginary conversation in the form of a platonic dialogue takes place between a playgoer and a stage director.

Through these characters Craig expounds his ideas about the unity of “action, words, dance and scene” brought into balance by an important component: the stage director.

Additionally, he criticizes the modern stage for its dependence on dramatic literature, which he finds unnatural to the theatre:

STAGE-DIRECTOR: (…) I have said that the first dramatist was the dancer’s son, that is to say, the child of the theatre, not the child of the poet. And I have just said that the modern dramatic poet is the child of the poet, and knows only how to reach the ears of his listeners, nothing else. And yet in spite of this does not the modern audience still go to the theatre as of old to see things, and not to hear things? Indeed, modern audiences insist on looking and having their eyes satisfied in spite of the call from the poet that they shall use their ears only. And now do not misunderstand me. I am not saying or hinting that the poet is a bad writer of plays, or that he has a bad influence upon the theatre. I only wish you to understand that the poet is not of the theatre, and that only the dramatist among writers has any birth-claim to the theatre— and that a very slight one. But to continue… My point is this, that the people still flock to see not hear, plays. But what does that prove? Only that the audiences have 56

not altered. They are there with their thousand pairs of eyes, just the same as of old. And this is all the more extraordinary because the playwrights and the plays have altered. No longer is a play a balance of actions, words, dance and scene, but it is either all words or all scene (75).

Craig, of course, is quick to see in the improvisational radiance of the commedia dell’arte a way to counteract the ‘poetry’ that had crept over and strangled the stage. In his periodical The Mask, he writes:

How much has been written about this wonderful attempt to raise Theatricals to a higher state…to lift them from interpretative into creative realms. And how much more will have to be written, and that before long on this plucky attempt. No one fails to understand that in the Commedia dell’Arte the Italians of the late 16th century gave to future generations a hint as to the possibilities of the Art of the Theatre. The hint was never taken by those of the subsequent centuries. 28

However he felt that his theories went unappreciated in England. Craig’s frustrations with the current state of the theatre, personal disappointments with egotistical actors and the staging of his shows, led him to seek a self-imposed exile in Italy. Here, fortuitously, he realized that primary sources on the commedia were at the tip of his fingers. Undertaking the from Italian to English of these documents, was his secretary and Italian scholar, Dorothy Nevile Lees. She and Craig explored the libraries of , Venice and Rome, engrossed in their endeavor to study the commedia from a scholarly angle, thus amassing a body of information formerly inaccessible to other European directors at the time (Taxidou, 113). Because of this inaccessibility most European Modernists viewed the commedia through the French filter, whereas Craig decided to dismiss those late Romantic/Symbolist reconstructions of the previous century. He criticized Goldoni

28 The Mask, ‘The Commedia dell’Arte Ascending” Vol.5, 1912, pp. 104-8, p.104 57 and Molière for eliminating the mask, thus giving the actor a third dimension and re- writing their character; he also disagreed with their incorporation of the commedia dell’arte characters in a classic literary tradition (Taxidou, 130). After tracing the roots of the commedia he set forth with zeal to publish all that he had found on the subject in his magazine, The Mask (1908-1929), a periodical devoted to the art of the theatre for enthusiasts of the stage:

Until now The Mask has had only a few words to say about the Commedia dell’Arte, that powerful development of the theatrical art which has done more credit to the stage than any later development, yet which was unable to survive Molière’s friendship; but now we publish all we can collect upon this subject…29

The Mask, became the greatest contemporary arts magazine of the time, boasting the most extensive bibliography, review of commedia literature and incorporation of images of the period (Taxidou, 114). Appearing for nearly 21 years and including some 15 volumes, The Mask was not entirely devoted to topics on the commedia dell’arte. It contained theoretical essays on scene design, movement and acting; historical articles on theatrical movements and international theatre, such as Greek tragedy and Japanese Nō; articles on the contributions and projects of participants in this ‘new movement’, such as

Meyerhold, Diaghilev, Reinhardt and Isadora Duncan; reviews of books and performances, as well as criticisms of theatrical critiques; attention to associated theatrical devices such as marionette theatre; and it reprinted engravings and illustrations of characters, scene designs and period costumes (Innes, 209). The very first issue was sent free of charge to all of the major European directors at the time. Due to its quality

29 Craig writes under the name ‘John Semar’ in The Mask, Vol. 3, 1910, p50 58 and content The Mask maintained a long list of notable subscribers, such as Hugo von

Hofmannsthal, W.B. Yeats, Jacques Copeau, , James Joyce, George Bernard

Shaw, to name a few, with subscriptions coming from all over Europe, America, Canada,

Russia and India (Bablet, 104). Each volume was penned by a number of contributors, among them, academics, directors and critics, although Craig was responsible for the majority of the content, and even wrote under various pseudonyms. He used The Mask as his soap box, and promoted and defended his theories and interests- especially the commedia dell’arte. Craig’s commedia campaign was indeed vast in its content. He wrote articles under broad titles such as “The Commedia dell’arte or Professional Comedy”30 that dealt with different topics in each issue, one being directions for putting on a commedia performance, another defending improvisation; the segment, “Critics

Criticized”31 admonished those negative criticisms of commedia performances, such as that of Italian critics who dismissed the commedia revival on their stage; articles such as

“The Commedia dell’arte Ascending,”32 praised the ‘awakening’ of the art form and the need to dedicate ample time to its study; and “The Characters of the Commedia dell’arte”33 included a classification system of the various names of the commedia stock characters in different languages. Additionally, Craig included essays on topics such as

30 See Volume 3, No 7-9, pp113-115 and 100-101 31 After reading a positive critique of a commedia performance in Budapest, he is angered by the negative criticisms coming from Italy about trying to revive the commedia on the Italian stage: “The Italian critics have, however, proved themselves less intelligent than the Hungarian in their reception of this old-new thing. More than one of them was exasperated by Signor Rossi’s enterprise: and they wrung their hands and cried that it was folly, a madness, a stupid attempt to make the theatre retrograde three hundred years : or they turned up their noses and sniffed at the absurdity of desiring to bring into the modern theatre the “foolish” old masks of former times; and altogether there was much fluttering in the critics’ devecote….” Critics Criticized, A Revival in Italy, Vol 5, pp181-186. 32 See Volume 5, pp104-108 33 See Volume 4, pp199-201 59 lazzi, masks and the history of puppets, while also reprinting the vivid illustrations of commedia characters and scenes from his archival research.

None would disagree that Edward Gordon Craig was vastly influential to

Modernist thought with the spread of ideas through his many publications; apart from his theories and designs, he is also credited with the promotion of “Art Theatres” throughout

Europe for theatrical experimentation. Another even greater recognized role is that of theatrical historian: today Craig is considered the father of theatre archives for his organized collections of theatre artifacts and ephemera (Innes, 215). In his own lifetime,

Craig was not successful in producing many of his own imagined productions, but many famous names in the international theatrical community credited him as being their inspiration and cause for success with performances highlighting the commedia dell’arte.

Although he was greatly revered by directors, writers and actors throughout Europe, he did not have a following in England, perhaps due to the fact that he permanently left the country just as he was beginning his most important work. It is not surprising then that in addressing the commedia revival in England there are only a few other names that can be included, namely: J.M. Barrie, Dion Clayton Calthrop, Clifford Bax and Harley Granville

Barker. However as all of these were dramatists who, of course, penned their commedia- inspired plays, Craig was not one to applaud such efforts, even if they did contribute to the spirit of his campaign:

I hope that no one will commence writing plays for Pierrot and Columbine and Puncinella, for a written play is an absurd thing and a dead thing into the bargain. One dreads to think what sweet stuff a minor or even a major poet would fashion out of these masked giants that strode across the centuries for a while, helping

60

Shakespeare, suckling Molière, creating Goldoni and being driven away from the haunts of man by the ungrateful children they had reared.34

One would have thought that Craig would have found in his contemporary,

Harley Granville Barker (1877-1946), a kindred spirit and living example of his Man of the Theatre, as Barker could rehearse and invent plays, design costumes and construct scenery, invent machinery, and create lighting design, lacking only the ability to compose music (Purdom, 162). However, although both men called for a complete reform of the theatre and voiced similar theories, there was never any collaboration or camaraderie between them, probably because of Craig’s famously difficult personality. Nonetheless

Barker was an enthusiast of the commedia dell’arte, which he incorporated into two of his most popular plays during his lifetime: Prunella, or Love in a Dutch Garden (1904) and The Harlequinade (1913). Collaborating with the stage designer and playwright,

Dion Clayton Calthrop, (1879-1937) in writing The Harlequinade, they showcased this theatrical genre with many added complexities. Developed in England and popular between the 17th to 19th centuries, the Harlequinade was a comedy or pantomime where

Harlequin and Clown occupied the lead roles. Barker and Calthrop’s Harlequinade stays true to the genre in that Harlequin and Clown play the principal parts in what proves to be a very entertaining comedy; however the complexities lie in the incorporation of three plays ‘within a play,’ of a symbolic/allegorical nature, as the history of man plays out under a fantastic/mythological overlay. Breaking the fourth wall are 15-year-old ALICE and her UNCLE EDWARD. They act as a sort of chorus and are already on stage while the audience is being seated, making comments throughout the play as to how many

34 The Mask, Vol. 3, 1911, p.101 61 people are in attendance, any lack of applause, etc. Behind them is a stage-within-a-stage where the plays-within-a-play take place. ALICE reveals the plot to the audience, explaining that PSYCHE, who is the Soul, comes down to Earth, and being that the symbol of the soul is a dove and the Columbine flower is made up of tiny dove-shaped flowers, well then she is COLUMBINE on Earth. MERCURY is sent to find her, and donning the patched robe and mask of a philosopher waiting for CHARON’s boat, he becomes HARLEQUIN. A half-God, MOMUS joins the search as CLOWN, and

CHARON leaves his boat to the philosopher’s charge, thus becoming PANTALOON;35 because, as ALICE points out:

“...you know if you stop believing in a thing, such as fairies…after a bit it somehow isn’t there any longer. That’s what nearly happened to the gods. But Mercury knew that if people won’t believe a thing when you say it’s real, they’ll just as good as believe it and understand it a great deal better when it only seems make-believe. And that’s Art. And as the easiest art in the world is the art of acting…the gods became actors” (12).

And so these Gods, turned characters of the commedia, set off for a weekend on Earth, which turns into centuries. Performing as themselves in a fifteenth-century Italian dumb- show (pantomime), an eighteenth-century English as servants, and realizing that the future holds no part for them while observing an intellectual drama of the future in which there is no plot, only conversation, they threaten to shut down the operation in a transformation scene which shows them back to their old antics where one only has to “Summon them and hear them cry- “Here we are again!” (54). Barker and

Calthrop are very direct in their criticisms, showing that the theatre of the past was light

35 The anglisized version of Pantalone. 62 and magical, but then the actors lost some status during the eighteenth century only to reach the age of machinery where they could not participate in nor comprehend the drab intellectual theatre of the day.

Another English dramatist, Clifford Bax (1886-1962), also experimented with the commedia, producing an interesting play entitled Midsummer Madness (1923). Four actors put on a commedia play in the garden of a hotel. PAT NOLAN plays

PANTALOON, is, of course, HARLEQUIN and CHLOE MOBIN plays COLUMBINE. With the addition of a MRS. PASCAL as the other leading lady, a comedic episode of amorous pursuits entails, where the men compete for the ladies’ affections and the women become rivals in seducing the males. In this play-within-a-play,

COLUMBINE is true to her commedia dell’arte of being a young inamorata.

MR. PANTALOON also adheres to his roots as a middle-aged merchant, obsessed with his business and, as MRS. PASCAL gossips, “was born, I hear, in Venice; and in his youth he was a great traveler. He tells me that at one time he was known to every village of Italy, France and Spain. In short, a reliable, grave, experienced man“(17).

HARLEQUIN, assuming a lead role, is transformed into lover and a rogue, but to these attributes is added that of poet. HARLEQUIN turns PANTALOON’s words to verse to annoy him and while chiding him on his lack of culture HARLEQUIN touts:

So well I read the poets when I was yet a boy That women, in my fancy, had all the keys of joy; But never trust the poets, nor read them till you’re grey, For women are not fashioned of blossoms but of clay (82).

To which MR. PANTALOON replies: “H’m ! Set a thief to catch a thief, and set a poet to denounce the poets! I shall never agree with you, never!” (82). It could be explained that 63 poetry is the food of the heart, and HARLEQUIN is, if nothing, a lover; however, describing the Harlequin figure as a poet arises in very few Modernist commedia dramas, and therefore I will examine this association in detail in the fourth chapter. It is also curious that in The Harlequinade MERCURY becomes the actor HARLEQUIN, as, among other traits, Mercury is the patron god of eloquence, thus poetry.

Assigning Harlequin the profession of poet is not a characteristic that J.M Barrie

(1860-1937) included in his commedia-inspired one-act plays. In his Pantaloon (1905)

HARLEQUIN is described as having no brains at all, and it is CLOWN who is the intellectual one. As Barrie gathers his inspiration from the English and pantomimes, it is not surprising that his Harlequin adheres more to the magical and mute theatrics of those .

As it is plain to see, English directors and dramaturgs produced some noteworthy contributions to the Modernist commedia revival, but significantly less so than their

European neighbors. Even with commedia enthusiasts such as Craig and Barker influencing dramatic thought, the English critics and audiences generally discouraged these types of plays from being produced (Fisher, 1989:104). Edward Gordon Craig therefore gave up trying to revolutionize the English stage as he saw fit, but he did make quite an impression on the continent, beginning with Russia.

2 C) Russia

When Edward Gordon Craig stepped off the train onto the platform in the winter of 1935, he was overwhelmed by the sight of a brass band playing in his

64 honor, as he was welcomed by Russia’s theatrical upper crust.36 Among those present was Vsevelod Meyerhold (1874-1940), one of Russia’s greatest theatrical directors, producers and actors. Meyerhold was in every way Craig’s Modernist contemporary, and shared not only his passion for the commedia dell’arte but many of his opinions on the direction of Modernist theatre. For example, Meyerhold also held the actor in great esteem, finding his role more important than that of the playwright, and similarly was captivated by the purity of wordless productions in the theatre. Akin to Craig, Meyerhold published his theories in a journal, The Love of Three Oranges. The majority of its content was dedicated to the commedia dell’arte in the form of plays, scholarly articles and essays on playwrights and directors, past and present, who were influenced by the commedia spirit.37 Meyerhold had first learned of Craig’s productions back in 1907 while visiting Berlin; then later in 1909, he translated two of the essays from Craig’s On the Art of Theatre, for the Journal of the Literary Artistic Society (Fisher, 108). Thus there is no doubt that Meyerhold, also a subscriber to The Mask, was greatly influenced by Craig and his ideas. For Craig these remained ideas, theories that were never put into practice, but

Meyerhold was able to experiment with the commedia in his many productions and even taught acting classes dedicated to the study of commedia dell’arte performance.38 One of

Meyerhold’s most celebrated productions was of Balaganchik (1906) (translated as “The

Puppet Show” and also “The Fairground Booth”), based on a Symbolist poem by

36 Craig had been invited to Moscow as a guest of the Russian theatres in March of 1935. See p106 of James Fisher’s The Theatre of Yesterday and Tomorrow: Commedia Dell’Arte on the Modern Stage. 37 The Love of Three Oranges received its name from the title of a Carlo Gozzi play; Gozzi, who had sought a revival of the commedia in the eighteenth century, was an inspiration for Meyerhold who sought a second resurrection. Under the pseudonym Dr. Dappertutto, Meyerhold published his journal for two years: 1914-1916, producing nine issues. See Vsevolod Meyerhold and the “Commedia dell’arte” by C. Moody, p. 864. 38 In 1913 Meyerhold opened the ‘Meyerhold Studio’ where he taught courses for actors, including one titled: “Methods of Staging Commedia dell’Arte Performances”(Fisher, 111) 6 5

Aleksandr Blok (1880-1921), that he rewrote in the form of a play at Meyerhold’s request. Balagan was Russian folk theatre, popular at Shrovetide fairs during the nineteenth century. It sprung from commedia dell’arte theatre first introduced in Russia in the eighteenth century by itinerant Italian troupes in St Petersburg, and was

Russianized (adding grotesque elements/distortion of perspective) to create the marionette balagany.39 Hence the concept of commedia dell’arte theatre in twentieth- century Russia was really an amalgum of balagan and that which theatre specialists, such as Craig, brought directly to Russia in theatrical and literary forms (Clayton, 128).

Life as farce, was the theme both central to Modernist commedia and balagan/commedia productions. It was expressed through metatheatre (play-within-a- play), which symbolized life as theatre, and as so highlighted the falseness of reality- a principal theme of Balaganchik. Blok’s play is built around a Harlequin-Colombina-

Pierrot love triangle, yet as the action unfolds everything moves towards unmasking the characters (COLUMBINE is seen as the symbol of death with her braid/scythe and then later turns out to be made of cardboard when she/it falls over), the decor (HARLEQUIN jumps out a window which is really a screen that tears, and the puppet show booth is raised-up exposing the stage mechanics), and even the author, as he barges onto stage repeatedly apologizing to the audience for the mockery that the actors have made of his play by portraying characters and scenes that he never wrote (in every way implying that the actors were improvising and thus rejecting literature in the theatre). Meyerhold not only directed the play, but acted in the role of PIERROT, and while conserving the

“sadness and universality of Pierrot, Meyerhold completely rid the character of the

39 See Clayton’s chapter: “Red Harlequins: The Balagan as a Theatrical Genre,” in his book Pierrot in Petrograd. 66 preciousness and delicacy that had often been incorporated in nineteenth-century interpretations. He was detached, ironic, and impudent, yet totally engaging to his audience at the same time” (Fisher, 118). An accomplished actor, Meyerhold, like Craig, believed that the key to modernizing the theatre at the beginning of the twentieth century lay in the hands of the actor. And in order to liberate the actor, he believed that it was necessary to return to the concept of the mask. In saying this he, again like Craig, did not imply that actors revert to using the old commedia masks per say, yet he saw in masks a complex tool that could greatly aid the actor in constructing his character:

If you examine the dog-eared pages of the old scenarios such as Flaminio Scala’s anthology of 1611, you will discover the magical power of the mask. Arlecchino, a native of Bergamo and the servant of the miserly Doctor, is forced to wear a coat with multicolored patches because of his master’s meanness. Arlecchino, the all-powerful wizard, the enchanter, the magician; Arlecchino, the emissary of the infernal powers. The mask may conceal more than just two aspects of a character. The two aspects of Arlecchino represent two opposite poles. Between them lies an infinite range of shades and variations. How does one reveal this extreme diversity of character to the spectator? With the aid of the mask. The actor who has mastered the art of gesture and movement (herein lies his power!) manipulates his masks in such a way that the spectator is never in any doubt as to the character he is watching: whether he is the foolish buffoon from Bergamo or the Devil. This chameleonic power, concealed beneath the expressionless visage of the , invests the theatre with all the enchantment of chiaroscuro. Is it not the mask which helps the spectator fly away to the land of make-believe? The mask enables the spectator to see not only the actual Arlecchino before him but all the Arlecchinos who live in his memory. Through the mask the spectator sees every person who bears the merest resemblance to the character (Braun, 113). 67

That said, the audiences of the day were not accustomed to seeing actors donning masks, especially since Realist theatre was the dominant genre of the times. Therefore

Meyerhold contrived of a new technique, biomechanics, which used the actor’s body as a mask. In an analogous fashion, the actor’s actions- through rhythmic motion and gestures- became as symbolic and transcendent as a facial mask (Moody, 866). In designing exercises to train the actors, Meyerhold found his prototype in the commedia dell’arte actor. With his consistent appearance, movements and actions, his whole being was a mask. Therefore Meyerhold mechanized the body through acrobatics in order to create a symbolic human representation. As Meyerhold did not study the commedia dell’arte as thoroughly as Craig, it is obvious that for him it was a useful , which he modified for his own theoretical uses (Taxidou, 133).

Of course Meyerhold was not alone on that ‘platform.’ The celebrated Russian director, (1885-1950), was himself a great admirer of Craig, to whom he referred to as “the Pope.” Tairov followed Meyerhold and Craig in rejecting the importance of the use of dramatic literature in the theatre and in praising the art of improvisation. Tairov was inspired by the revival of the commedia dell’arte, and incorporated many commedia characteristics into his productions. In doing so he, like

Meyerhold, looked to the commedia as a theatrical form that he could adjust for his own theoretical uses, noting here that

Immortality lies in the fact that they are organically fused with their stage figures; it is as impossible to steal from Harlequin his costumes as it is to strip him of his skin…I am not at all suggesting that we restore them. The characters of the contemporary theatre and the theatre of the future are much more complicated than Pierrot and Harlelquin, and the costumes from them must of course be 68

different, but they must be constructed according to the same sure principle- - the principle of harmony with the dynamic essence of the scenic figure being created by the actor (Tairov, 53).

In theorizing on the direction of contemporary theatre, Tairov agreed with Craig that the naturalistic tendencies of the theatre should be limited, however he did not go so far as to agree that they should be dismissed completely (Fisher, 132). Tairov shares a middle-of- the-road approach to this topic along with poet and theorist Valery Bryusov (1873-1924), who was the first to introduce in the Russian theatre a shift away from realism in his manifesto/article “Unnecessary Truth” (Carlson, 313). Bryusov explained that

Both “realistic” and “conventional” theatre lead to unresolvable contradiction. The first, seeking ever closer of reality, only calls attention to the basic unreality of the stage. The second, seeking to escape this trap, falls into another. As it stylizes or makes abstract the elements of production, it encounters the obstacle of the human body. The end result is a theatre of marionettes, or of pure abstraction. One path extinguishes theatre by merging it with life, the other by merging it with thought. Both deny the essence of theatre, which as observed is action (179).

In search of a middle ground, he argued for a conventional theatre, such as the Greek and

Elizabethan theatres where the actor was the central figure. Bryusov’s ideas were those that originally inspired Meyerhold to break away from Stanislavski’s realist theatre and form his own company, thus allowing him the freedom to experiment with the commedia dell’arte. However he, like Craig, wanted to do away with all naturalistic vestiges in the theatre, which polarized him within his group of Russian symbolists.

Theorizing on this debate in the Russian theatre was the seminal playwright and director, Nikolay Evreinov (1879-1953). It was his belief that realism, “a useless double 69 of life, and symbolism, which subverts the direct joy of visual perception by emphasizing the internal, are both hostile to the true spirit of theatre” (Carlson, 326). Evreinov prescribed to the pursuit of true theatricality, and although he is sometimes grouped with the symbolists of that time, as his theories were representative of some of their central concerns, he did not consider himself one. This pursuit led him away from theorizing about the role of the actor and instead focus on what it meant to be “theatrical.” In doing so, Evreinov followed the suggestion of the critic, E.A. Znosko-Borovski (1884-1954), who encouraged playwrights to study “theatrical eras” (ie: Greek and Roman theatre, the theatre of the Renaissance, etc.) in order to reproduce these works on the stage as a remedy for Realism (Carlson, 325). Therefore Evreinov formed the Theatre of Antiquity in order to teach Russian theatrical specialists, and the public alike, about the most theatrical achievements in history; he had planned on devoting an entire season to the commedia dell’arte. Working together with him on this venture was Konstantin

Miklashevskii (1886-1944), who was the leading Russian authority on the commedia dell’arte. Miklashevskii (also known as Constant Mic) had written extensively about the commedia in a book on the subject, which was published in Russia in 1914, and then later translated to French and circulated abroad (Clayton, 64). Unfortunately the war began;

Constant Mic was drafted and the production was abandoned. However Evreinov’s love affair with the commedia dell’arte had deep roots. He developed a strong identification with the commedia, stating, “I am Harlequin and as Harlequin I shall die;” he was also known to dress-up as a clown for dinner parties at his home (Fisher, 128). Like his fellow

Russians thus mentioned, Evreinov was influenced by the writings and theories of Craig,

70 which were gaining popularity in Russia around the time that he wrote his first harlequinade: A Merry Death.

Akin to Blok/Meyerhold’s Balaganchik, A Merry Death is of the same genre, as it borrows from the French romantic harlequinade with its Pierrot-Colombina-Harlequin love triangle. The play was first produced in 1909 at the Merry Theatre for Grown-up

Children in Petersburg, and was soon after showcased on many an international stage

(Clayton, 150). A Merry Death is quite entertaining in spite of the fact that it centers around HARLEQUIN’s remaining hours of life. Subtitled “A harlequinade in one act with a small but extremely entertaining prologue and a few concluding words from the author,” it is PIERROT who delivers this prologue and the concluding remarks of the author (Evreinov) to the audience. He explains that a fortuneteller predicted that on the day in which HARLEQUIN sleeps more than he drinks he would die by that day’s end, which is the case as HARLEQUIN languishes in bed in the background. As a seemingly friendly gesture PIERROT conveys to the audience how he has set the clock back two hours to give HARLEQUIN some more time, which in doing so displays an uncharacteristic trait as a scheming : “I’ve always enjoyed swindling people and so when it comes to swindling death and Harlequin into the bargain, to the disadvantage of the former and the advantage of the latter- I would say that you can’t call the plan anything other than sheer genius (6). Of course when PIERROT learns that his wife,

COLUMBINE, is HARLEQUIN’s lover, he exacts his revenge with the setting forward of that clock. Nevertheless, PIERROT never receives any satisfaction from these schemes, as HARLEQUIN’s truly is a merry death. The play borrows from the commedia dell’arte in many regards. HARLEQUIN is aged, with grey hair, but he still sports his

71 iconic diamond-patched costume. PIERROT is dressed in his French Romantic puffy white costume with long white sleeves and large buttons. Like commedia productions the play is highly theatrical, as emphasized with comically oversized props: the bed, a thermometer (which catches fire when Harlequin’s temperature is taken) and the clock.

Evreinov also incorporates music into the play at different points, as well as sound effects: A locomotive mirrors HARLEQUIN’s beating heart; HARLEQUIN plays the lute when COLUMBINE visits; and in a footnote the author states that “The harlequinade music must be a plainly simple arrangement, sounding pleasantly child-like, to remind the old folks of some poor balagan” (7). True to the lazzi of the classic commedia, are the physical and verbal gags. These are most noticeable when THE DOCTOR comes to call. In classic double-talk:

THE DOCTOR (listens to all sides of the patient, to Pierrot). He has quite a fever. It’ll be a miracle if my ear and cheek don’t burn up. (To Harlequin.) Yes, yes you’re a sick man, all right, but let’s hope you’ll recover shortly. (To Pierrot.) Hopeless, the mechanism’s completely broken down. (To Harlequin, as he listens once more.) You’ll live a long time yet. (To Pierrot.) He’ll die any time now. (To Harlequin.) You did the right thing to send for me. (To Pierrot.) You’d have done better to send for an undertaker (8).

And then the physical gags ensue as THE DOCTOR tries to collect his fee from the agile

HARLEQUIN who, for a dying man, is impossible to catch. All of this borrowing from the traditional commedia dell’arte doesn’t reflect a revival of the art form in any purist vein. As is apparent from PIERROT and HARLEQUIN’s costumes, these characters are borrowed from different periods of commedia history. Moreover PIERROT is portrayed as a comic figure, not his traditional pathetic self, whereas HARLEQUIN bears a tragic

72 countenance uncharacteristic of his droll self. Another characteristic of commedia, the play-within-a-play, is absent, but there is a sense of theatre-within-theatre. In the prologue PIERROT invites the audience into the world of the harlequinade, but then at the end he presents himself as an actor, discussing his “own” opinions of the author’s concluding words (which of course are the author’s words): “Ladies and gentlemen, I forgot to tell you that neither your applause nor your hisses will be taken seriously by an author who proclaims that nothing in life is worth taking seriously. And I might add that if he’s right, then I fail to see why anyone should take that author’s play seriously, especially since HARLEQUIN has no doubt already risen from his death bed and is now preening himself for the curtain call. Because, say what you will, actors aren’t responsible for the playwright’s wild ideas” (19). Writing about Evreinov’s theatre,

Carnicke points out that at the end of A Merry Death, a

...collision of dramatic modes occurs at the moment of Harlequin’s death. Pierrot, Columbine, and Death herself treat the situation as a tragedy. Pierrot and Columbine cover their eyes in fear, while Death majestically extends her hands to stop the clock. In her self-importance and her personification of an abstract idea, Death prefers to play tragedy in the Symbolist vein. In her character Evreinov adds yet a third dramatic mode to his play, that of the Symbolists, and thus gives a subtle jab to the “Maeterlinckian”40 attitudes of theatrical abstraction and at the popular Symbolist theme of death. Harlequin, however, insists on keeping the scene light-hearted. He asks Death to dance for him and keeps time with the music...Thus, the reactions of Pierrot, Columbine, and Death herself, when viewed in light of Harlequin’s own enjoyment, seem out of proportion and thus part of a ludicrous and farcical in which the characters over-react to

40 (1862-1949) was the leading Symbolist playwright in at the time, and he incorporated the neo-Romantic theme of death into many of his works, a theme that was very popular with the Russian Symbolists as well. (Golub, 125) 73

common everyday occurrences. Tragedy has again been deflated to melodrama. (Carnicke, 132)

This appears to be the main feature of Russian commedia: the mixing of divergent theatrical styles for comic results.

Evreinov’s theories on theatricality not only led him to mix theatrical styles in his plays, but also to experiment with the ‘stage of life.’ His obsession with theatre-in-life41 culminated in the creation of his widely celebrated play, The Main Thing (also translated

The Chief Thing), which opened in 1919. Here his central character, PARACLETE, enlists the help of some local actors to play the role of residents/staff in a boarding house in order to brighten the spirits of those who live there. Evreinov’s original idea was to present in this main role Jesus Christ as a divine harlequin, bringing cheer to the dreary

(Golub, 133). He still accomplishes this duality in PARACLETE, who plays the role of a fortune teller (hearing the problems of the dispirited boarders), DOCTOR FREGOLI

(signing on the actors), KARL IVANOVICH SCHMIDT (playing a business man living in the boarding house), a MONK (disguised from his ex-wives) and ultimately

HARLEQUIN (his Shrove-tide party costume and alter ego). As PARACLETE skillfully pulls the strings that guide so many human relationships, his endgame is only to prove his deep belief in theatre-in-life-as-salvation: “...if we are unable to give the deprived happiness, we must at least give them the illusion of happiness. That is the main thing...”

(67). PARACLETE himself, who plays a role at all times, in only unmasked at the end of the play when he ironically dons the mask of a harlequin. The final act parallels the

41 Evreinov was similarly inspired (just like André Antoine in France and William Poel in England) to stage performances of period plays in the venues of their times (town squares, churches, castle halls etc.) with audience members dressed in the costume of the times. (Carlson, 325) 74 transformation scene of a harlequinade, where many unrelated stories come together as if by magic. Here the boarding house is transformed from it’s shabbiness into a bright carnival celebration with ribbons, colored electric lights, paper flags, and drawings of

Harlequin, Colombina, Pierrot and the Dottore hanging from the walls. Of course the boarders/actors are dressed-up as well, and Pierrot happens to be played by an actor/detective who in the “reality” of the play has been neglecting his wife and making trouble for PARACLETE through his investigations. PARACLETE, dressed as a monk says to him “You’re Pierrot, and you’ve been made a fool of...That’s your fate, you know, if you’re Pierrot, that is a simpleton who’s always getting into a jam when he pokes his nose in somebody else’s business” (116). The actor/detective responds, “But if

I’m Pierrot, then only Harlequin can make a fool of me!.. Hundreds of commedia dell’arte, hundreds of harlequinades can also testify to that!” (116).

PARACLETE/MONK then throws off his robes to reveal his Harlequin costume, and in the tradition of Clown in a harlequinade says “We’re all here!42 Harlequin, Pierrot,

Columbine, and the Doctor from ...We’ve come to life again, my friends!” (116-

117). Again, Evreinov not only mixes theatrical styles, but also experiments with the

“theatricality” of metatheatre to a dizzying and inspiring level. In a comparison with the commedia dell’arte-inspired plays of the Russian symbolists at that time, Clayton sees that in The Main Thing,

By placing the spotlight, not on the pessimistic image of Pierrot, but on the positive (in Evreinov’s reading) character of Harlequin, [he] attempts a corrective to the preceding literature (e.g., Blok’s Balaganchik). His Harlequin-Christ, the

42 See footnote on the title of this chapter “Here we are again!” 75

comforter and the advocate, is a deliberate antidote to the suffering, alienated Pierrot-Christ, not Christ the scapegoat, but Christ the Redeemer (Clayton, 180).

Evreinov repeated the use of Harlequin, super clown and trickster, juxtaposed with Christ the Savior in many of his plays, which he referred to as “tragic-farces.” (Fisher, 130) And just as Evreinov and Meyerhold both appropriated the commedia for their own theoretical uses, so did another playwright energized by the commedia spirit: Mikhail Kuzman

(1875-1936).

Kuzman was a collaborator of Meyerhold’s and Tairov’s, creating the music for many of their productions including Balaganchik and Tairov’s production of Benavente’s

Los intereses creados (Clayton, 156). Kuzman was not only a composer, but also a playwright, whose play, The Venetian Madcaps (1912), was an important addition to the

Russian commedia genre. Set in the era and location that evoked a traditional commedia setting, Kuzmin describes a troupe of commedia players interacting with some of the noblemen of eighteenth-century Venice. The troupe’s Colombina, FINETTE, is

HARLEQUIN’s lover (he does not go by any other name as if to fuse the personality of actor with his mask), and she sets her sights on the rich and dashing COUNT STELLO.

Albeit that she and HARLEQUIN have their casual affairs, it is implied that their hearts are true to each other, and that any other intrigues are for a bit of fun. FINETTE, sure that her powers of seduction are lost on no man, finds a challenge in STELLO, who reportedly does not know nor seek affection. However, STELLO’s lover, NARCISETTO, falls for FINETTE, and in an act of love for her murders STELLO right before the troupe’s play is about to begin. STELLO’s death and FINETTE’s accessory to the crime causes HARLEQUIN to announce to the audience the troupe’s regret for their immediate

76 departure. As Clayton points out, this play is not only unique for its homosexual aspect, but also in that there is no Pierrot figure; moreover, there are no “self-reflective” issues about the theatrical experience which seem to permeate the Russian commedias (157). As for the characteristic play-within-a-play, this aspect too is not entirely present, as the troupe’s play is never performed. What does seem clear is that this commedia theme acts as a facade behind which lies an autobiographical tale, with the homosexual Kuzmin living in St. Petersburg, often referred to as the “Venice of the North” (Clayton, 157).

Although Kuzmin’s Venitian Madcaps wasn’t a product of any theoretical experimentation, such as Evreinov and Meyerhold’s productions, his addition to the

Russian Symbolist commedia-inspired plays showcased a largely absent (in this period) function of the commedia dell’arte, that of conveying a socio-political message.

The sheer quantity and variety of commedia dell’arte productions showcased in

Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century demonstrates the clear obsession with this theatrical genre at that time. These productions, principally in St. Petersburg, ranged from recreations of traditional Italian street commedia to the staging of eighteenth- century commedia works (Molière, Calderon, Gozzi, Goldini) and the ‘contemporary’ works henceforth examined both in Russia (Block, Meyerhold, Evreinov, Kuzmin) and abroad (Benavente, Lothar, Leoncavallo, Schnitzler). For example Clayton references the year 1921 for its astounding number of commedia-themed performances: Carlo Goldoni’s

Il Servitore di due padrone, Evreinov’s The Main Thing, Benavente’s Los intereses creados, Lothar’s König Harlekin, Leonvacavallo’s opera I Pagliacci and the ,

Harlequinade, by Drigo and Petipa- to name a few (Clayton, 116). However, by the end of the 1920s the enchantment with the commedia dell’arte diminished, as all theatrical

77 trends eventually fall out of fashion- in this case to be replaced by the socialist realism of the 30s. In his book, Pierrot in Petrograd, Clayton attributes the disenchantment with commedia-inspired productions to the shifting of power in Soviet society away from the

“avant-garde elite” and towards the more conservative tastes of mass culture (122). These

“elitist experiments” that we’ve focused on were too out-of-the-box for the mainstream audiences who were “intolerant of the exotic and foreign, the fantastic and abstract, the intellectual and the experimental – in short, things that commedia meant in the Russian context” (123). Nonetheless, the plethora of productions/plays (not to mention other literature, visual arts, letters, costume/dress etc. that were similarly influenced) that sprung from the passionate affair that the Russian symbolists/decadents (and pseudosymbolists like Evreinov) had with the commedia dell’arte form a rich chapter in the ongoing history of this theatrical genre.

2 D) Germany and Austria

It should come as no surprise that when discussing the commedia dell’arte resurgence on the Modernist German and Austrian stage that we begin again with the influence of Edward Gordon Craig. Although Italian plays were performed at the

Bavarian courts as early as 1568 - as one only has to look at the vivid frescos of the characters and scenes from the commedia dell’arte painted at that time on the walls of

Trauznitz Castle - the Modernist commedia revival in Germany and Austria was ushered in by way of artistic exchange with early Modernist European theatrical figures, such as

Craig (Fisher, 165). Craig’s publications and scenic designs were famous throughout

Germany mostly thanks to Count Kessler of the Court of Weimar, a patron of the arts and literature who had seen some of Craig’s performances in England and invited him to

78

Weimar in 1903 to produce a play (Bablet, 68). It was through Count Kessler that Max

Reinhardt (1873-1943) was introduced to Craig, Reinhardt being the kind of theatrical director/producer that came close to fulfilling Craig’s ideal model of a “man of the theatre.”43 The two instantly made plans for collaboration, and in 1905 Craig was invited by Reinhardt to produce several plays for his theatres: The Tempsest, Macbeth, Caesar and Cleopatra (Bablet, 84). However, Craig was always asked to modify his designs, which angered him, thus severing that relationship. This was of no concern to Reinhardt who was wildly successful and not so much interested in working with original ideas, but rather to glean inspiration from them. Hugo Von Hofmannsthal describes Reinhardt’s inspirations in his article, Reinhardt as an International Force, attesting to Craig’s impact on his work:

He has learned much from Gordon Craig, that lonely pioneer, whose dream was to control the scene by means of changing light, and to create “an ever shifting maze of color, form and motion.” He learned much from him, but only in order to create out of what he learned something newer, more powerful, better suited to the practical theatre. He took certain things from the Japanese theatre and from the theatre of antiquity; he owes much to the ceremonies and pageantry of the Catholic church. Venice, that dream city, its architecture and history more theatrical than anything else in the world, has always fired his imagination. No national procession that he watches in a mountain village, no picture that he sees in a museum fails to enrich him, but what he makes of it all is something peculiar to himself, and something apparently inexhaustible. I remember his advent clearly, and the years which developed him from an “interesting young director” to the leading figure in the German theatre (Sayler, 22).

43 Edward Gordon Craig’s The Art of the Theatre was written while he was visiting Berlin in the spring of 1905 (Bablet, 76). 79

When describing Reinhardt’s appropriation of commedia dell’arte characters and/or elements in his productions, he is considered an antiquarian. This is due to his disinterest in using the commedia for developing performance theories- like Meyerhold and Craig- and instead recreating and preserving commedia scenarios in order to focus on their theatricalism, rather than their reinvention. Like Meyerhold under Stanislavski, Reinhardt had studied acting in the naturalist style with Otto Brahm, only to follow the same path in rejecting these teachings and pursuing more theatrical modes of production (Clayton, 53).

As an actor, he admired the profession with the same passion as Craig and Meyerhold, although he did not try to evoke another side of the commedia character, like Meyerhold with Pierrot, or Craig with his theory of the über-marionette (Fisher 171). His opinion on the role of the actor recalls Craig strongly, although framed in his own way:

It is to the actor and to no one else that the theatre belongs. When I say this, I do not mean, of course, the professional actor alone. I mean, first and foremost, the actor as poet. All the great dramatists have been and are today born actors, whether or not they have formally adopted this calling, and whatever success they have had in it. I mean likewise the actor as director, stage-manager, musician, stage-designer, painter, and certainly not least of all, the actor as spectator. (Reinhardt, 36-37)

This positioning of the actor in a role more important than author is prevalent among the

Modernist directors who rejected naturalism, and Reinhardt similarly shared their disregard for literary theatre, which he felt suppressed the creative process.

Reinhardt was a great collector of commedia dell’arte artifacts and manuscripts, including paintings and sculptures depicting the stock characters (Green, 110). His love of the genre permeated through his productions even when they were not called for: such

80 as the short pantomimes in the commedia tradition inserted into his 1909 Shakespeare productions of , or dressing his actors as Clowns, Harlequins, Colombinas and Pantalones in a scene of The Taming of the (Fisher, 178-179). This was also the case with Reinhardt’s productions of Molière’s plays, as he incorporated commedia characters in scenes of The Bourgeois Gentleman, and again in The Imaginary Invalid- where during the intermission “Colombine, Harlequin, Polichinelle, Il Dottore and

Zerbinetta”(188) floated on stage in a dreamlike fashion and improvisation was permitted by his lead actors (Fisher, 186-188). His production of Goldoni’s The Servant of Two

Masters is considered the most commedic of his career, and his in-depth knowledge of the commedia scenari/lazzi granted him the ability to depict the play as Goldoni intended

(Fisher, 180). He staged The Servant of Two Masters regularly between the years 1907 to

1940, and each time it became increasingly commedic; he even enlisted the participation of the great family of actors, the Thimig’s, who were as close as possible to the traditional “ensemble acting” of the commedia dell’arte (Fisher, 181). Due to his enormous success and consideration as one of the greatest theatrical directors in Europe,

Reinhardt traveled extensively with his productions, thus promoting the commedia dell’arte revival in places such as the United States, where it had little exposure hitherto.

Although Reinhardt benefitted from a long career as the director of various theatres in

Berlin and Vienna for thirty years, as an Austrian Jew he was forced to sign over his theatres to the German people in 1933 during the Nazi occupation (Fisher, 190).

Reinhardt therefore sought asylum in the United States, where he continued to direct plays until his death in 1943.

81

Max Reinhardt was among the few directors in Germany and Austria to take a keen interest in utilizing the commedia dell’arte in his productions. As for the playwrights of this region, they did not experience as much passion for the commedia revival as the Russian symbolists, but they still produced an important, albeit modest contribution. We begin with Austrian playwright Rudolf Lothar’s44 (1865-1943) King

Harlequin (König Harlekin) (1900), which stands out as being one of the most performed and celebrated Modernist commedia plays in Europe during the early twentieth century, leading to its translation at that time into English, Hungarian, Polish, Swedish, Danish,

Croatian, Spanish and Italian (Clayton, 38). This fact then baffles all who go in search of the text, as it proves almost impossible to find nowadays even in our vast, well-organized and internationally lending libraries.45 A fundamentally political play in its depiction of monarchy and anti-authoritarian sentiment, it met with multi-nation censorship, which only heightened its popularity. The drama begins in the bedchamber of a king of an imaginary locale in Italy lying on his deathbed. His degenerate son, BOHEMUND, engaged to a courtier’s daughter, GISA, is to succeed him; however, before this transfer of power officially takes place BOHEMUND invites a commedia dell’arte troupe to perform at the castle, and the crafty HARLEQUIN kills BOHEMUND. So great are

HARLEQUIN’s powers of deception that none suspect that it is really he who has taken

BOHEMUND’s place, and thus is crowned king. So begin HARLEQUIN’s troubles, as he is torn between ruling with an iron fist and demonstrating mercy for his humble

44 Lothar’s real last name was Spitzer, and even though an Austrian, he was born and died in Budapest. (Clayton, 303) 45 I borrow from J. Douglas Clayton’s description of the play, as he was lucky to discover rare copies of a 1903 French edition (Arlequin-roi) and a German third edition (König Harlekin) from which he bases his analysis. (p.38) 82 constituents. His love life is also in turmoil as his lover, COLUMBINE, does not recognize him as HARLEQUIN, and yet is easily seduced by the ‘king.’ He eventually makes PANTALONE his confident, and decides to calm his jealousy by confronting

COLUMBINE as his true self. He thus learns that COLUMBINE believed the king to have killed HARLEQUIN, and her motive was to avenge his death by taking the king’s life. These exchanges are witnessed by GISA’s power-hungry father, TANCRED, who threatens to expose HARLEQUIN. Nevertheless, HARLEQUIN avoids certain death by bargaining for the exchange of the throne for his freedom, which is then left to GISA and her true love, a dim-witted cousin of BOHEMUND. Of course these depictions of the power-hungry and obtuse ruling the were incendiary for the times. An allegory for the last days of the Hapsburg monarchy, Clayton comments that in its “determination to make its point, it succeeds mainly in showing that ideas, however ingeniously presented are the death of the theatre” (39). The play’s artificial, humorless plot leaves little doubt as to why it did not occupy a place in the theatrical canon. Even the use of the commedia stock characters raises question as to Lothar’s understanding of commedia dell’arte. Although he uses the characters’ names and most recognized personality features, he does not employ any of the commedia’s theatrical devices, while even its

“happy ending” does not move it any closer on the classification spectrum towards being a farce. To this effect, Clayton also observes that “Its popularity is symptomatic of a stage in the revival of the tradition when the nature of the commedia was misunderstood as a set of images or theatrical characters, not as a structural rupture with the dominant, realistic theatre (39).

83

The German writer and dramatist, Paul Ernst (1866-1933), demonstrated a more in-depth knowledge than Lothar of the commedia dell’arte, as he utilized the characters/elements for their theatricality and not as a screen for realist political theatre.

Ernst had rejected naturalism as he found it to be indifferent to “the process of development of modern society and its lack of support for ” (Carlson, 331). He therefore turned to “pure” theatre, where in his comedies of ideas he utilized the techniques of the commedia dell’arte in order to “reveal the evils of bourgeois society”

(Fisher 192). He experimented with the commedia dell’arte characters/scenarios in three plays that take place in Venice during carnival at the beginning of the 18th century: A

Night in Florence (Eine Nacht in Florenz) (1904), Saint Crispin (1910), Pantaloon and

His Son (Pantalon und seine Söhne) (1916). However, where one would expect pure farce, his plays rather demand reflection, as his characters deal with topics of love and identity through commediaesque scenarios of love triangles and masked character confusion (Fisher, 192).

Adding his distinctive Modernist touches, like Ernst, to his commedia dell’arte- infused plays was the Austrian dramatist, Arthur Schnitzler (1862-1931). Schnitzler’s contribution to the revival was in the form of two pantomime plays: The Transformation of Pierrot (Die Verwandlungen des Pierrot) (1908) and The Veil of Pierrette (Der

Schleier der Pierrette) (1910). Pierrot is the central figure of Schnitzler’s pantomimes, and his depictions of the love-sick Pierrot display, in my opinion, the source of his inspiration: the great French mime, Jean-Gaspard Deburau (1796-1846) who famously characterized Pierrot in this manner. Schnitzler’s The Veil of Pierrette is a complicated pantomime in that it is written with a good deal of dialogue, all to be mimed:

84

PIERROT: Why should we die? Come, let us run away, rather. PIERRETTE: shakes her head. PIERROT: leads her over to the window But look how beautiful the world is. It’s all ours. Come, let’s run away. PIERRETTE: Run away? No! Where to? What shall we do? We have no money. There is no other way, we have to die (193).

Here, PIERROT and PIERRETTE are discussing their plans to be together, either in this life or the next. The action takes place in Vienna at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and there is music that accompanies the entire pantomime. We learn later that

PIERRETTE has just married ARLECCHINO (Harlequin) and has left her wedding party to be with her lover PIERROT. However when PIERROT commits to her plan and drinks his glass of poison, PIERRETTE hesitates and does not drink a drop. PIERROT dies in anguish and PIERRETTE flees the scene horror-stricken. She quickly returns to her wedding party where her husband ARLECCHINO angrily awaits her. In this pantomime play the Harlequin figure is an uncharacteristically jealous husband and middle-aged man, more like a Pantalone. He is also depicted as a tyrant instead of a scrappy trickster:

ARLECCHINO: threatening I will exact terrible vengeance. I will set the house on fire. I will kill everyone (199).

In this moment ARLECCHINO is threatening PIERRETTE’s parents due to her apparent betrayal, just as she returns to the party, although missing her veil. Amid the festivities

PIERROT appears to her holding the veil. As she tries in vein to recapture it, he leads her back to his house and ARLECCHINO follows. Thus ARLECCHINO becomes aware of

PIERRETTE’s treachery, and after toying with her declining sanity he locks her in the room with the dead PIERROT after which she slowly spirals downward in dance to her 85 death. Schnitzler, although a writer and critic, was also a physician; his deep interest in lead him to form a close friendship with Freud. This pantomime, although focusing on the themes of love and betrayal also highlights psychological turmoil, in my opinion, an element that is also present in his other commedia-themed pantomime.

The Transformation of Pierrot introduces a PIERROT who has just fallen in love at first sight with KATHARINA. She reluctantly allows herself to be seduced by him as she is already engaged. This ability of seduction is more widely associated with

Harlequin, where Pierrot would normally occupy the role of the cuckolded fiancé; here, however, Harlequin’s characteristics are transferred onto PIERROT. The play-within-a- play (in this case, pantomime-within-a-pantomime) element is also present as we see

PIERROT performing in his last show (where HARLEQUIN and CLOWN briefly appear) in order to give up the stage (and the fiancée that he already has) and seek a life as a gentleman for KATHARINA. Here PIERROT doesn’t go by any other name, which recalls the great commedia actors of the 17th and 18th centuries who were only referred to by their character’s name that they played and perfected their whole lives. Again

PIERROT acquires Harlequin’s craftiness and trickery when he spots KATHARINA out with her beau and follows them through a fairground, briefly taking the role of various vendors so that KATHARINA believes herself to be going mad, seeing him everywhere.

PIERROT tries to manipulate her when they finally confront each other in convincing her that by seeing him everywhere it only proves her love, but as the vendors (and his fiancée) come after him the set-up becomes apparent. PIERROT realizes that

KATHARINA is lost to him and pacifies the crowd by inviting them all to celebrate his almost-forgotten engagement. Although the pantomime ends merrily enough for the

86 secondary characters, the are left to their loveless coupling amid the lingering air of deceit.

At the turn of the century German-language pantomime was remarkably popular.

There seemed to be a growing interest in physical expression that the German and

Austrian Modernists embraced with their pantomimes. In Segel’s article on “Pantomime,

Dance, Sprachskepsis, and Physical Culture in German and Austrian Modernism,” he attributes the “subversion of the traditional role of spoken speech in drama” to be influenced by the Belgian symbolist, Maeterlinck, and emphasized further by

Hofmannsthal, Chekhov, Hauptmann and Gertrude Stein (1924:65). The commedia dell’arte theatre, which in its evolution and Modernist revitalization had transformed into nonverbal drama in many instances, was apropos for Modernists like Schnitzler to use in their pantomimes. And so great was the Modernist German and Austrian enthusiasm for pantomime that the Russian director Tairov is quoted as saying that “all the literature on pantomime belongs to German authors and composers” (even though he was surly aware that their contribution to this genre did not exceed England’s or France’s) (Segel,

1924:62). Pantomime, in its close association with commedia dell’arte gesture and theatricality, was held to a high esteem on Russia’s Modernist stage- Tairov and

Meyerhold each produced Schnitzler’s The Veil of Pierrette. Also popular was Lothar’s aforementioned drama, King Harlequin, which was presented simultaneously in two

Moscow theatres; the play also inspired a Russian equivalent, Pul’chinelo, 46 a “tragic

46 “In the play Pul’chinelo we see the conflict of the people with a despotic power. Against the backdrop of an old Italian commedia dell’arte, behind the mask of laughter through tears is enacted a drama of wounded human feelings which are eventually avenged. The spectator meets PUL’CHINELLO, the hero of the play, on the day of his daughter COLUMBINE’s marriage to HARLEQUIN. Invoking the ancient privilege, the landowner SIGNOR sends servants to the wedding to bring the bride to his castle. HARLEQUIN 87 harlequinade” which was published by the Social-Democratic Party and was similarly met with censorship (Clayton, 109-110).

Although Schnitzler and Lothar gained the most notoriety from the international staging of their plays, there were a few other dramatists such as Austro-Hungarian born

Ödön von Horváth (1901-1938) and Austrian writer and dramatist Hugo von

Hofmannsthal (1874-1929), who were inspired to write plays with commedic touches.

Horváth took inspiration from the commedia in his plays Italian Night (1931) and Figaro is Getting Divorced (1937), while Hofmannsthal discovered the commedia through his study of Molière, and incorporated some commedic characters and elements in the writing of the libretto for Reinhardt’s production of Ariadne auf Naxos (Fisher, 190).

Even the antiquarian Reinhardt took interest in the commedic contemporary stage, and produced a play by the comic actor, Viktor Arnold, entitled Pierrot’s Last Adventure

(1912). Following in the Russian Symbolist tradition, it nonetheless failed to charm audiences and Reinhardt chose not to add it to his repertory (Fisher, 189). The commedia dell’arte spirit moved the Modernist dramatists of Germany and Austria to a lesser degree than the , but the genre still made its mark, especially in reflecting the politics and the physicality that interested the tastes of its audiences.

2 E) France

indignantly chases the envoys away. They then abduct COLUMBINE, wound HARLEQUIN when he rushes to defend her, and seize PUL’CHINELLO himself with his servant PIETRO. Meanwhile, in the castle SIGNOR ‘s son hatches a plan with another to kill SIGNOR. Their conversation is interrupted by a deputation that has come to greet the Signor. At the same time the abducted COLOMBINE is brought in; she offers the SIGNOR such valiant resistance that the lascivious old man, struck by her refinement and dignity, gives her her freedom. Nevertheless, PUL’CHINELLO and PIETRO, thrown into prison by the inquisition, are condemned to death for plotting the death of the SIGNOR. However, the villagers rise up against the SIGNOR, and, hastening to the court with HARLEQUIN, who has recovered from his wounds, set free the condemned men. The play ends with the triumph of PUL’CHINELLO and the young lovers.” This synopsis is taken from Vestnik teatra, No. 21 (1919): 23, and translated on page 109 of J. Douglas Clayton’s Pierrot in Petrograd. 88

“There is in art a renewing of eternal forces which is accomplished...through a periodic return to the original source...If it is a question, for future authors, of establishing a New Comedy, a universal comedy...they would perhaps find it necessary to once again study a theatrical form that we consider archaic, but which never ceased trying to return to ancient sources before fertilizing, for several centuries, all of Western theatre, right up to Molière, who exhausted its meaning, its essence, and its warmth. I’m speaking of this comedy of the Italian Renaissance known as the commedia dell’arte.” - Jacques Copeau47

Modernist French theatre experienced the resurfacing of commedia dell’arte- inspired performance in the second decade of the twentieth century under the direction of

Jacques Copeau (1879-1949). Copeau, a Parisian theatre critic, found himself, like many of his contemporaries, frustrated with the realist stage and searching for new theories for reform. Realizing that he would require an active, more influential role in order to ignite the reform he so desired, Copeau formed a theatre company of his own, founding the

Théâtre du Vieux Colombier in 1913. As he looked to the ideas of André Antoine and

Adolphe Appia in structuring theories for his theatre, he additionally found himself inspired by the writings of Craig and Meyerhold. Copeau had read Alexander Bakshy’s

The Path of the Modern Russian Stage, which made mention of Meyerhold’s 1912 essay

The Fairground Booth (Pocknell, 282). The return to the “booth” and the commedia dell’arte are what Meyerhold prescribed as the remedy for the realist-plagued stage, preventing, also, the dependence on literature. Well-versed in French theatre, the commedia dell’arte would not have been to Copeau the exotic performative system that

47 Marie-Hélène Dasté, “Forward. Jacques Copeau’s School for Actors,” Mime Journal, Nos. 9,10, 1979, p.4. 89 many of his international contemporaries found themselves dedicating much study to.

Not only was it the foundation of Molière’s comedies, but Copeau would have been aware of George Sand’s experimentation with improvisation and her staging of commedia plays at her Nohant Theatre between 1846-1863 (Fisher, 1992: 207).48 Perhaps it is this over familiarity with Harlequin, Colombina and Pierrot, which caused Copeau to no longer see their universality. Stating that their comedy had become “sterile,” Copeau had no interest in purely resurrecting the commedia dell’arte on his stage; instead, he set out to “re-populate” their ranks (Rudlin, 1986: 97).

Copeau had hardly settled into his directorship of the Vieux Colombier, when his plans were arrested by the advent of war in the summer of 1914. Most of his troupe of actors were drafted for service, including his most talented: , sent to

Lorraine as an infantryman, and Louis Jouvet, sent to the front (Knapp, 200).

Nonetheless, they were able to communicate frequently, sending letters back and forth brimming with ideas for the future direction of the Vieux Colombier. In a letter with

Jouvet during the winter of 1916, Copeau explained his desire to revive the commedia dell’arte in the Italian style by means of an entirely new creation, wanting

To invent... about ten modern synthetic characters of great breadth, representing characteristics, foibles, passions, the moral, social and individual absurdities of today. Invent their outlines, invent their costumes, always identical, modified according to circumstances by a certain type of prop. These ten characters of an autonomous comedy, which includes all types from pantomime to drama, confide them to ten actors. Each actor has his character which is his property, which becomes himself, which he nourishes from

48 This French Section exclusively cites James Fisher’s book: The Theatre of Yesterday and Tomorrow: Commedia Dell’Arte on the Modern Stage. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992 90

himself, from his feelings, his observations, experience, readings and his inventions...A brotherhood of face-players always playing together, improvising together, authors and actors, singers, musicians, acrobats...These ten characters enter into all possible combinations. This is infinite, constant renewal, it is and gaiety reborn...(No sets. Always the same props with their physiognomy unchanging as with the actors.) I already perceive three of these characters: the Intellectual (doctor, philosopher, professor, etc.) the Representative (deputy, minister, electoral agent, food merchant, etc.) the Adolecent (the child in his family, the schoolboy, lover, artist, soldier, and finally the ‘idealist’, grandson of Pierrot, white face, etc.)...Am I mistaken? And a thing which no one else will be able to take from us, to imitate, to disguise. We’ll need two or three years to prepare for this step. (Kurtz 41-2)

Therefore it was through this invention of new stock characters that he intended to “re- populate” the commedia-inspired stage, and in doing so he found it necessary to create a school to train his actors in this complex commedic art. He looked to Craig for ideas in forming a school, as Craig himself had opened one in Florence in 1913, only to be forced to close a year later at the start of the war. Copeau held Craig in great esteem, stating in a letter to Jouvet that “Craig, the only man whose theories are valuable, is incomplete for lack of a stage” (Bablet, 182). Copeau then got a chance in 1915 to visit Craig in

Florence, ever ready to exchange ideas about educating actors in improvisational comedy. Copeau’s discussions with Craig about Modernist theatrical trends left him with a clear sense of the commedia dell’arte’s role in the formation of Modernist improvisational comedy (Fisher, 211). Meanwhile Jouvet was reading Gozzi while assisting the wounded, and Dullin was recruiting new members for the Vieux Colombier in the trenches. In a letter to Copeau he described some prospects who were able to

91 improvise on sketches, including Pierre-Louis Duchartre,49 who he thought would be an excellent secretary for Copeau (Pocknell, 282). Never losing sight of their aspirations,

Copeau, Dullin and Jouvet were finally reunited after the war ceased, and their years of planning could now be put to action with the anticipated opening of Copeau’s école.

The members of Copeau’s new company were comprised of a dozen teenage girls and boys. (Kurtz, 38) Copeau refrained from choosing experienced actors, most likely due to the difficulty involved in reconditioning them in the manner that he envisioned of performers of his New Commedia.50 He demanded that the actor “give himself. In order to give himself, he must first possess himself” (Fisher, 211). Therefore, like Meyerhold and Craig’s methods demanded, Copeau’s student-actors dedicated themselves to a vigorous training program that focused on the control of the human body. Apart from studying movement through Dalcroze’s rhythmic dance system, Kurtz explains, “Copeau did not let his students speak or sing. They were taught to control and color their voices by first uttering only the sounds of animals or the elements, such as the wind or the rain...Their bodies, in turn, were required to symbolize forms, like trees, before conveying emotions or ideas” (38). Craig’s influence on Copeau was also apparent in

Copeau’s use of masks in the training of his young actors. Copeau had seen Craig’s collection of masks while visiting him in Florence, and it left him inspired to experiment with them; he chose the neutral mask for its absence of expression so that his students would have to rely on bodily movement and voice (Fisher, 214). Additionally, in order to prepare his company, or les Copiaus as they were later called, for ensemble acting, he

49 Of course Duchartre went on to write “The Italian Comedy,” making him one of the most prominent experts on the commedia dell’arte in France. 50 I borrow Rudlin’s translation of “Comédie Nouvelle” as “New Commedia,” as he states, “in order to avoid confusion with Greek New Comedy.” 1986: p134 92 called on the Fratellini Brothers of the Cirque Medrano to instruct them in the art of clowning and acrobatics (Pocknell, 281). Copeau had seen how well the Fratellini

Brothers interacted, improvising through movement and modeling the type of performative “brotherhood” that Copeau sought. Thus, with his curriculum of bodily movement well absorbed, Copeau could finally turn his young students’ attention to the real focus of his New Commedia: building a confrérie of farceurs that would improvise, sing, clown and interact through the guise of fresh stock characters of their own creation

(Knapp, 206). To begin this task the students were given “types” from Molière and other literary sources as a starting point, and then were expected to add distinctive posture and mannerisms to the character. This exercise was a point of departure from which they then could each create their own Modernist characters; some of these, among many, were “a timid hairdresser, a rich bourgeois lady, and a myopic Polish woman” (Rudlin, 1986:

101). Copeau’s nephew, Michel Saint-Denis, was the most successful in forming a character to Copeau’s expectations. Costumed in a worn-out coat and baggy trousers, and accessorized with a stick and rolled up piece of carpet, Saint-Denis would lose himself in the mask of “Oscar Knie” (Evans, 80). Unfortunately those Copiaus who triumphed in immersing themselves in their masked characters were all men, perhaps, as Evans notes, for an absence of masked female roles in the commedia dell’arte from which to model themselves after (80). However, even when a character was skillfully constructed the dialogue between the characters did not come naturally to the actors, and they weren’t able to complement each other’s roles in the way that Pantalone or Il Dottore subordinated the action (Rudlin, 1986: 104). Nonetheless, Copeau’s company was not focused solely on the product of their experiments with improvisation, and they achieved

93 great recognition in France for their performances of literary dramas (mostly Molière and

Shakespeare) seasoned with commedic zest. In 1924 Copeau moved his troupe to

Burgundy which proved to be the highest point of his experimentation with commedia dell’arte inspired theatre. During this time Copeau took to writing versions of commedia plays (Goldoni’s The Mistress of the Inn, which he called Mirandoline), commedia scenarii (Harlequin the Magician (1925), The Illusion (1926), and Ruzzante’s The

Woman of Ancona (1927) and even a parade (Thomas de Gueulett’s Les Sottises de

Gilles) for their production by his Copiaus (Fisher, 223). The improvisational experimentation of the Copiaus was also finally put on display with two original works:

La Danse des Villes et des champs, concerning the attempts of a peasant to succeed in a town, and two comical townsmen unable to cope with country life, and Les Jeunes Gens et l’araignée, a tragi-comedy in four acts, a dream performed with masks, mime and improvised characters. According to Mme Rose-Marie Moudouès the Copiaus staged a parade in the local village of Meursault prior to their performace, in keeping with the tradition of the itinerant Italian actor (Pocknell, 289-90).

Copeau regarded his role in these experiments with improvisation as that of a poet, guiding his actors by inspiring them through his teachings (Pocknell, 281). However as the critic that he was, he acknowledged that he never accomplished the Comédie Nouvelle that he had originally envisioned. Nonetheless, his commitment to perpetuating an anti- realist theatre modeled after the commedia dell’arte never diminished. This is even more apparent when examining the new type of stage that Copeau and Jouvet invented, the treteau, which eliminated any want for scenery. Basically a large square platform placed in the middle of the existing stage, the treteau had two staircases at the front and one on

94 each remaining side, so that action could take place at many levels (Fisher, 220). Thus, the actors’ physicality was highlighted as they entered, exited, jumped and danced between the different spaces created by this stage-within-a stage. Copeau’s productions and instruction always elevated theatricality through the use of masks, dance, music, pantomime, ensemble acting and improvisation. However his days of experimentation with these mediums ended when he closed the Vieux Colombier in 1929, following the loss of some of his best students as they sought other opportunities to advance their careers (Fisher 23). Nevertheless, Copeau continued to write and theorize on the direction of theatre, also directing abroad and in France, ever dedicated to his visions on Modernist theatre.

Copeau’s theories and teachings did not cease to galvanize early Modernist

French theatre after the closure of the Vieux Colombier. Copeau had an incredible impact on his students and consequently their students, thus carrying his New Commedia’s legacy to new generations of theatrical practitioners. As Fisher notes, “By the middle of the twentieth century, many major actors and directors in France were working to some degree within the commedic tradition” (229). Louis Jouvet, who was an original member of the Vieux Colombier company along with Charles Dullin, both of whom had laid plans with Copeau for the opening of his école, went on to be directors of their own theatres.

Jouvet led two different theatres in Paris, while Dullin directed the Théâtre de l’Atelier and formed a school of his own for experimental theatre techniques (Fisher, 230). There

Dullin continued the teachings of Copeau, applying the artistry of the commedia dell’arte to his performance pieces (again mostly plays by Molière), and impressing on his students the value of improvisation and pantomime. Dullin was not the only one to

95 continue Copeau’s teachings so faithfully; when the Vieux Colombier closed, Michel

Saint-Denis formed the Compagnie des Quinze in 1930 along with many of the former

Copiaus (Fisher, 229). Jean Dasté (1904-1994), Copeau’s son-in-law, was a protégé of

Michel Saint-Denis and a member of the Compagnie des Quinze who later went to study at Dullin’s Théâtre de l’Atelier (Fisher,229). He then went on to direct various theatre companies with his wife, Marie Hélène Copeau, reviving many of Copeau’s most commedic productions.

Apart from Jacques Copeau’s influence on actors and directors, he also inspired writers, among them (1881-1958) and Jules Romains (1885-1972).

Martin du Gard, winner of the 1937 Nobel Prize for literature, had been in contact with

Copeau during the war, as he was preparing characters that Copeau could possibly use for his Comédie Nouvelle. Giving this scheme the name Comédie de Tréteaux (a nod to the specialized stage designed by Copeau and Jouvet) it was comprised of a number of social types:

A group of bourgeois, including Hector Punais, apoplectic, pompous, engaging in corrupt business deals whilst proclaiming his honorable principles, and his enormous, overdressed, bejeweled, and highly predatory wife. The servants included Fric, an agile valet, quick-witted and enterprising, his girlfriend Miette, a “Colombine de faubourg”; a gangster, Malandrin, originally a speculator, later a chauffeur to the Punais, who prepared traps for his victims and waited for them to succumb. There was Falempin, a “matamore du trottoir,” always embroiled in intrigues, whose language was the slang of the streets of Paris, and then Benênoist the optimistic businessman, ever about to make a fortune but sinking into bankruptcies instead, and getting a beating at the same time. Martin du Gard made detailed notes for their costumes, for he wanted his characters to be recognizable

96

as soon as they leapt on the platform stage, in the hope that they would soon become as familiar as the figures of the Italian comedy (Pocknell, 285).

He incorporated these “types” into two plays entitled, Malandrin secoue ses maîtres and

Hollé-Ira. Unfortunately, Copeau rejected them for use at the Vieux Colombier for their lack of spontaneity, an essential component of his New Commedia, and so Martin du

Gard pursued the project no further (Pocknell, 286). Thus was the case with most authored works of this nature, when written in isolation there was little room for improvisation, and therefore little resemblance to the commedia dell’arte construct. Met with this same conclusion was the French poet and writer, Jules Romains (1885-1972).

Appointed by Copeau as the first director of the Vieux Colombier school, Romains also concocted an assortment of stock characters to fit the desired mold of Copeau’s Comédie

Nouvelle. Although Romains tried to incorporate more abstraction into his setting and character schemes in order to open up room for improvisation, Copeau found the structure unsuitable for by his actors. Romains, however, passed it on to

Jouvet, who by that time had his own company, and Jouvet directed its production at the

Comédie des Champs Elysées, playing the lead himself (Pocknell, 286).

As these writers penned commediaesque stereotypes for Copeau’s New

Commedia, Sacha Guitry (1885-1957), a playwright and film director, returned to the early nineteenth-century Romantic portrayal of commedia masks for the setting of his

1918 drama, Deburau. The play is based on the life of Jean-Gaspard Deburau (1796-

1846), the mime who re-imagined the character of Pierrot (a version of the Italian zanni

Pedrolino) with that of the pale love-sick figure that has survived to this day. Deburau’s genius for pantomime led him to unparalleled fame at the Théâtre des Funambules on

97

Paris’ Boulevard of Crime, and as Pierrot he became a symbol for the Romantic

Movement in France at that time (Fisher, 205). Guitry imagines Deburau towards the end of his career, and mixes some anecdotal fact with mostly . His play begins with

DEBURAU performing “The Old Clo’ Man” which Guitry cites in the stage directions for the first act “as told by Théophile Gautier51 in the de Paris of September 4,

1842” (19). From there the action shifts to the behind-the-scenes dialogue between the actors and patrons. DEBURAU, who cannot be swayed by his many female admirers, is nonetheless wooed by the youthful and wealthy beauty, MARIE. He leaves his wife and son for her, and then, as life imitates art, he falls into a deep depression when MARIE leaves him for another. Another anecdote is added in the third act when THE DOCTOR is called. Not knowing the name of his patient, THE DOCTOR famously prescribes that

DEBURAU go see himself at the Funambules to lighten his mood: “He’s the doctor for you. Wait till you begin to laugh” (180). The play ends with DEBURAU’s son,

CHARLES, deciding to replace his father on the stage, to which DEBURAU offers him some wisdom and advice from the experience of his career. (1829-

1873) did follow his father’s legacy as Pierrot, but never reached Jean-Gaspard’s level of talent (Fisher, 205). However, by perpetuating the tortured role of the once gentle clown,

51Théophile Gautier (1811-1872) was a French novelist, dramatist, critic and journalist. Also a lover of pantomime he published a review of a pantomime,“The Old Clo’ Man” (“Pierrot Posthume”) in the Revue de Paris, that he had supposedly seen at the Théâtre des Funambules. However this pantomime was of his own invention, and therefore was not being performed at the Théâtre des Funambules. Following the review he did pen the work for performance, citing anonymous authorship in the theatre bill, although all knew of this comic deception. The pantomime was unlike any of those normally performed by Deburau, as Gautier’s Pierrot murders a clothes vendor in order to enter a fancy ball attended by his beloved, and then is in turned killed by the vendor’s ghost. This nod to high tragedy is obviously what Gautier had in mind when he titled his review “Shakspeare (sic) aux Funambules.” See Robert Stories Chapter “Pierrot Posthume: Théophile Gautier” for a more detailed analysis. Gautier’s “The Old Clo’ Man” also appears in Marcel Carné’s Les enfants du paradis as if it had been one of Deburau’s most celebrated pieces, when in reality it only ran a week at the Funambules. However, the pantomime’s literary preservation, given the popularity of Gautier’s fake review among the literati, is the reason why it carries such a strong anecdotal presence. 98

Charles Deburau did assist in solidifying this image of Pierrot in the minds of those

Romantics, Symbolists, Decadents and Modernists who incorporated him into their art.

That said, no other artistic composition has immortilized Deburau’s Pierrot like Marcel

Carné’s 1945 masterpiece, Les enfants du paradis.52 Deemed by many as the best French film ever made, the lead role modeled after Jean-Gaspard Deburau (in the movie he’s named Baptiste) was played by an equally talented mime, Jean-Louis Barrault (1910-

1994). Barrault began his career studying under Dullin at his Atelier theatre (Fisher, 235).

There he met Etienne Decroux (1898-1991) (who also appears in the film) with whom he developed a mime grammar. Decroux had also been a student of Copeau, and he borrowed heavily from Copeau’s acting exercises in developing his own approach to acting and pantomime (Fisher, 239). After Les enfants du paradis, they both rose to international fame, especially Barrault. Barrault’s character Baptiste was an amalgam of

Deburau’s Pierrot and commedia’s Arlecchino: “Baptiste is a primitive, a child...Naughty at his strongest moments, he can only fight and kill in a dream” (Fisher, 238). And although Fisher considers Barrault to be the French theatrical practitioner, next to

Copeau, who was most influenced by commedia dell’arte technique and performance,

Barrault very rarely returned to commedic pantomime after WWII (Fisher, 238).

Therefore as Craig led England, Meyerhold, Russia, and Reinhardt, Germany and

Austria, Copeau was the theatre director with the greatest contribution to the revitalization of commedia dell’arte technique on the French stage. His impact on actors, writers and directors spanned generations and influenced not only stage and street performance, but film as well. Inasmuch as the commedia construct thrived on the stage,

52 Sacha Guitry adapted his play for the screen and directed its production under the same title, Deburau, in 1950. 99 that which was confined to the page in the form of dramatic literature did not reach a significant level in France. Perhaps this can be explained by the continued relevance and usage of Molière’s works. Molière had modeled many of his plays on commedia scenarios and came to be known as “the commedia dell’arte poet;”53 these plays provided the Modernists with structures conducive to improvisation while dispensing

“elasticity, ease, movement, diversity” and “simplicity,” making them an obvious choice for enactment within the anti-realist parameters (Kurtz, 39). One only has to look to the mime drama of Marcel Marceau and James Lecoq, and the productions of Ariane

Mnouchkine, to see that commedia dell’arte-inspired performance was deeply ingrained in French culture and was present throughout the twentieth century in France.

2 F) Conclusions

Across early twentieth-century Europe commedia dell’arte elements sparkled against a realistic backdrop. On the Italian stage Pirandello lifted improvisation and masks up to the light again in his conceptual and intricate dramas. In Russia, the

Symbolist experiments of Meyerhold and Tairov coupled commedia with the grotesque and carnivalesque- both through artistic and political dimensions- while Evreinov and

Blok flavored their dramas with as much commedia spirit as they could squeeze into them. In Germany and Austria, Reinhardt revived the commedia through the structures penned by Shakespeare, Goldoni and Molière, while Schnitzler and Lothar made waves with the popularity of their respective dramas/pantomimes. Jacques Copeau and his merry band of Copiaus experimented extensively with every possible commedic component, while Guitry resurrected Deburau in recalling the inspirations for the

53 Attributed to Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce (1866-1952) 100

Modernist commedia revival. In England Harley Granville Barker, Dion Clayton

Calthrop and Clifford Bax embraced commedic metatheatre, while Edward Gordon Craig made haste to pollinate innumerable theatrically-interested minds across Europe with the extensive possibilities of commedia dell’arte theatre.

Of course Craig buzzed in the ears of many Eastern Europeans as well, where in

Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia there were traces of the commedia revival’s breadth. In Hungary Lajos Ziláhy (1891-1974) wrote a commedia play, Musical Clowns

(1925) about a poet’s relationship with his public, and director Sandor Hevesi (1873-

1939) was frequently lauded by Craig in The Mask, for his improvised productions and development of new theatrical techniques (Fisher, 149). In Poland, Craig’s theories were well known and considered- especially by director Leon de Schildenfeld Schiller (1887-

1954), while Bolesław Lesmian (1878-1937) authored two pantomime plays Pierrot and

Columbine and The Frenzied Fiddler, much inspired by the Russian commedists

(Fisher,151). In Czechoslovakia, Meyerhold’s theatre influenced director Jindřich Honzl

(1894-1953), while his compatriot, director Jiří Frejka (1904-1952), aimed to create a poetic theatre with his use of improvisation and other commedia techniques (Fisher, 156).

Scandinavia also experienced a faint trace of the commedia spirit with Danish playwright

Sven Clausen’s (1893-1961) play, Among Garlands of Roses (1933), that depicted

Modernist equivalents of Pierrot, Harlequin and Colombina; while in Sweden, Hjalmar

Frederik Bergman (1883-1931) created a trilogy of commedia plays, Death’s Harlequin,

A Shadow, and Mr. Sleeman is Coming, grouped under the title: The Marionette Plays

(1917) (Fisher, 161-163).

101

The commedia revival was not only spread throughout Europe by theories such as

Craig’s; the first Modernist commedic plays performed abroad figured an important role in disseminating the salient features (masks, lazzi, improvisation) of the commedia dell’arte, those being: I Pagliacci, King Harlequin and The Bonds of Interest (to be discussed in the fourth chapter). This exchange of repertory became an important part of the lasting power of commedia theatre, thus inspiring theatre practitioners across borders.

Pirandello directed The Main Thing and A Merry Death, which was also was directed by

Copeau in France, while Meyerhold and Tairov staged as many international commedic plays as they could fit into a season. Of course these plays traveled across the pond as well, and Barrie’s Pantaloon, Guitry’s Deburau, Barker and Clathrop’s The

Harlequinade, Benavente’s The Bonds of Interest, Evreinov’s A Merry Death and The

Main Thing, and Blok’s The Fairground Booth all graced New York’s stages (Fisher,

251-259). However, this exchange of anti-realist, commedic theatre was met with little interest, if not indifference in the United States. Even when Vadim Uraneff (1895-1952)

(who had joined many other Russians in emigrating to New York amidst revolutionary turmoil) founded American Commedia dell’arte, Inc. (The Theatre) in order to bring commedia techniques to the American stage, he was met with criticism and detachment

(Fisher, 255). Most likely those anti-realist passions that had so fueled the revival in

Europe were no longer current artistic concerns in the United States. Even though dramaturgs had very little to contribute to the revival, an exception was Kenneth Sawyer

Goodman’s (1883-1918) and Ben Hecht’s (1894-1964) The Wonder Hat. In this quaint one-act play, Harlequin, Pierrot and Columbine are the focus of comic confusions and amorous pursuits brought on by magical items sold to them by Pulchinello: a slipper and

102 a hat that give their wearers the powers of irresistibility and invisibility, respectively.

Albeit a relative contribution, it also breaks with the majority of the commedia-inspired plots of that time period, with magic being the fantastic element.

Although the incorporation of commedia characters and techniques were utilized to offset the strict constraints of Realist and Naturalist theatre, there did exist some overlap between the genres. When we examine the plays summarized in this chapter, we see that most playwrights used an entirely realistic framework, only to introduce the commedia in a “play-within-a-play” device. This is the case in Leoncavallo’s I Pagliacci

(1892), Guitry’s Deburau (1918) and Clifford Bax’s Midsummer Madness (1923). In this grouping we should also include Lothar’s King Harlequin (1900) and Kuzman’s The

Venetian Madcaps (1912), since commedia characters are present within the premise that they are performing a commedia dell’arte play, even if we don’t actually see a play- within-a-play. Along similar lines Evreinov’s The Main Thing (also translated The Chief

Thing) (1919) introduces commedia characters as the main characters’ carnival costumes for their Shrove-tide celebration. If we are to place all of these dramas on a spectrum, the plays that experiment heavily with “theatre-within-the-theatre,” such as Pirandello’s Six

Characters in Search of an Author (1921) and Barker’s and Calthrop’s The Harlequinade

(1913), would fall somewhere in the middle. Pirandello’s six characters blur the line between fictional and “real” actors, while Barker and Calthrop’s narrators go a step further in repeatedly breaking the fourth wall while describing the exploits of the mythical/commedia characters. Also in an intermediary position are Schnitzler’s pantomimes, The Veil of Pierrette (1910) and The Transformation of Pierrot (1908). As pantomimes they evoke theatre-within-the-theatre, although they have realistic premises.

103

On the opposite end of this spectrum would be Block’s The Fairground Booth (1906) and

Evreinov’s A Merry Death (1909), as these Symbolist plays are devoid of any realistic structure. Perhaps not to lose audiences in cerebral/artistic experiments, the majority of

Modernists were sparing in their incorporation of commedia themes, using it mainly for a splash of color against a black and white plot line. Even among the Symbolists only a few rejected all sense of verisimilitude. Douglas Clayton makes the point that although there is a strong difference in poetic between naturalism and symbolism- “where naturalism was metonymic, unambiguous, and realistic, symbolism was metaphoric, ambiguous and surrealistic – and a difference of philosophy – unlike naturalism, which was still positivist, symbolism had absorbed the of Mach and Schopenhauer-” they did come together in certain aspects (12). Clayton finds that this is visible in the role of the central figure, such as Pierrot, who inhabits a surreal world even though he is a victim of naturalism- only able to kick-up the dust in his plight, he is still a victim in the end. He concludes that both Symbolism and Naturalism offered “a critique of the contemporary world, and both were in their own way “progressive” or revolutionary: naturalism in the political sense only, commedia both politically and artistically” (12). Thus the early

Modernist presence of the commedia dell’arte was not as radical a break with the Realist genre as one might think.

As we examine the lasting effects that the commedia dell’arte had on Modernist drama in Europe, we are confronted with the question as to whether the resurgence was a restoration or a renovation of the genre.54 I believe that any commedia scholar would

54 John Rudlin poses this question in the conclusion of his book, Commedia dell’Arte: An Actor’s Handbook, however he goes about his discussion of the question as it pertains to his own experiences in staging commedia dell’arte theatre, and not, as I do, in the historical sense. 104 agree that the commedia dell’arte, being essentially an improvisational theatre, can not be

“restored” because of its lack of unification as an art form. Given the role that individual actors since the 16th century had in transforming the stock characters’ personalities, as well as the early Italian commedia troupes or families, like the Gelosi, who tailored their performances to the taste of their patrons (in their case, the Duke of Ferrara),55 it proves nearly impossible to restore a genre that, from its creation, was in a constant state of metamorphosis (while conserving a loose structure). Therefore the Modernist period experienced yet another “renovation” of the commedia genre, although some theatre practitioners were more innovative than others due, no doubt, to actor/director/playwright

Dario Fo’s (b. 1926) observation: “...don’t mess with the Masks unless you already have your own present-day political and artistic standpoint worked out. Otherwise they will suck you into their own historicity rather than provide you with sharp comedic tools with which to create modern meanings” (Rudlin, 248).

Although, as was stated in the introduction to the chapter, the Modernists avoided any association with politics in their creative appropriations of the commedia dell’arte, this was not the case in the Post-Modernist renderings. In the second half of the twentieth century there were many theatre directors/actors/playwrights who were inspired by commedia dell’arte technique, having been students (or students of students) of the

Modernist directors thus mentioned or merely discovering on their own the genre as a challenging medium, and many of them infused it with their political messages. In all of the countries thus mentioned in this chapter the commedia dell’arte continued, long after the Modernist period, to have a presence on their stages. James Fisher highlights these

55(Ibid, 230) 105 more contemporary directors/actors/productions/companies that borrow from the commedia dell’arte in his book The Theatre of Yesterday and Tomorrow: Commedia

Dell’Arte on the Modern Stage. In Italy: Eduardo De Filippo (1900-1984) and his company I de Filippo incorporated commedic elements into their productions; Giorgio

Strehler (1921-1997) director of the Piccolo Teatro di Milano founded in 1947, was very dedicated to the revival of the commedia; Carlo Boso (b.1946) founded his Tag Teatro company in 1975 where many commedia plays based on traditional scenarios were produced; Dario Fo (b.1926) and his Compagnia Dario Fo-Franca Rame created satirical/political comedies from the 1960s until the present day (42-58). In England:

Director Frank Dunlop (b. 1927) and actor Jim Dale (b.1935) incorporated comic Italian song, and acrobatics in Scapino! (1970); the international director Peter

Brook (b.1925) was inspired by Meyerhold and from meeting Craig in the 50s (102). In

Russia, Eugene Schwarz’s (b.1958) play The Shawdow was a tribute to the commedic style and was produced at the Leningrad Theatre of Comedy in 1960; Nikolay Akimov

(1901-1968) incorporated commedic elements in his productions at the Theatre of

Comedy founded in 1935 (144-145). In Eastern Europe: Jerzy Grotowski (1933-1999) founded the Theatre of 13 Rows in 1959 in Poland; Omar Otomar Krejča (1921-2009) ran The Gate theatre from 1965-1972 and playwright Daniela Fischerová (b.1948) used commedic elements in her play Princezna T (1986) in former Czechoslovakia; Bulgaria’s

Theatre of Satire founded in 1957 developed ensamble-style acting and produced commedia plays. In Scandinavia Eugenio Barba (b. 1936) immigrated to Norway from

Italy, and started the Odin Teatret in 1964, where he focused on acting traditions and commedic theatre- later founding the International School of Theatre Anthropology in

106

1979 in Denmark (163). In Germany: (1898-1956), Friedrich Dürrenmatt

(1921-1990), Peter Handke (b.1942), Xaver Kroetz (b. 1946), Martin Sperr (b. 1944) have all used commedia dell’arte elements in their plays (193-199). In France: Marcel

Marceau (1923-2007) and (1921-1999) studied under Dullin and Jean

Dasté, respectively, and were heavily influenced by commedia dell’arte techniques;

Ariane Mnouchkine (b. 1939) started the Théâtre du Soliel in 1964 and experimented with masks, improvisation, metatheatre and acrobatics in her productions, which emphasized the ideas of Copeau and Meyerhold (241-249). In the USA: Carlo Mazzone-

Clementi (1920-2000) emigrated to America in 1957 and started The Dell’Arte School of

Mime and Comedy in California in 1971; (1890-1969) directed The

Federal Theatre Project and experimented with avant-garde styles such as commedia; The

Bread and Puppet Theatre founded in 1960 used improvisation and commedia stock characters in their comically oversized puppet shows with sometimes political themes;

The San Francisco Mime Troupe has staged productions since 1959 that featured commedic techniques and masks, and later followed Copeau in abandoning the traditional stock characters and creating Modernist counterparts in politically charged productions

(264-284).

There is no doubt that the commedia dell’arte will continue to inspire in the theatre arts for infinite generations to come. However returning from the present to the

Modernist period, it becomes apparent that Spanish commedia-based dramas have been overlooked in this survey. No mere oversight, the inclusion of these Spanish dramas has met with much controversy; nonetheless, they are proven to have a place among the

European Modernist commedia dramas, which is the subject of the next chapter.

107

Chapter 3: “Other” Modernist Manifestations: Commedia dell’Arte in Spain

As the theatre of northern Europe in the late nineteenth century witnessed the contrasting styles of realist social dramas (ie: Chekhov, Ibsen) and experimental symbolist plays (ie: Maeterlinck, Yeats, Wilde) playing out on their stages, a look south to Spain revealed a theatre that stagnated under the predominance of José Echegaray’s

(1832-1916) semi-realist, neo-romantic, . Thus the thirst for innovation led many Spanish dramatists in the 1890s to react against Realism, concurrent with the international trend. As Astradur Eysteinsson states in his influential work on Modernism,

The Concept of Modernism, the fundamental aesthetic that characterizes the movement is its differentiation from the conventions of nineteenth-century Realism.56 However, many

Spanish writers and critics during this period did not associate their new emphasis on anti-Realist literature with the European Modernist movement. Equally so, European literary criticism on Modernism generally excludes Spanish “Modernist” contributions to the canon. Centuries of Christian, Moorish and Jewish mingling produced a multicultural

Spain marked by its racial difference with the rest of the continent, and thus perpetuating the northern view that “Europe begins at the Pyrenees” (Bretz, 15). Nonetheless, a strong case can be made for the existence of Spanish Modernist literature, both generally in its formal characteristics and influences, and specifically in its use of commedia dell’arte theatre.

56 See chapter five: “Realism, Modernism and the Aesthetics of Interruption” pp. 179-241. 108 In order to understand why both European and Spanish literary criticism has historically rejected the notion of Spanish participation in Modernism, it is important to first examine the socio-political environment of fin de siècle Spain. Much of Spain's nineteenth-century history can be interpreted in terms of political, ideological and often armed conflict between two camps: liberal-republican and Carlist. Historians count three

Carlist Wars, whereby those in the 1830s and 1870s were most significant. In general terms, the liberal-republican side aimed at the establishment of a secular government modeled on those in France or the United States. This politics found inspiration in the

1812 constitution, introduced during the Napoleonic Wars, which aimed to reduce and weaken the powers of the crown, the aristocracy and, especially, the Catholic church, while strengthening assorted "progressive" elements in the state and society.

Representatives of the liberal-republican camp at the time included the growing bourgeoisie, the merchants, many army and navy officers, as well as the urban intelligentsia in the big cities like Madrid and . The Carlists, in contrast, expressed skepticism about both liberal and republican ideas, and sought the preservation of Spanish "traditions," especially including the monarchy and the church. In addition to these two forces, the Carlists received considerable support from the landed nobility, the majority of the peasant population, as well as by some regional governments, especially those in the Basque country and Navarre. In fact, most Spanish regions were against liberal reforms since they endangered local autonomy- self-rule privileges, or fueros- that had historically been acknowledged and protected by the crown. The last Carlist war of the century ended in 1876 as a liberal-republican victory, and the introduction of a new constitution for Spain. What followed, however, was neither lasting peace nor effective

109 political settlement.57 Therefore, in addition to the unstable economic cycles, the predominance of the middle class and the scientific and technological advances that were affecting modern Spanish life, the political instability that took hold in the rest of Europe was just as acute in Spain, causing authors to favor escapist themes in their works. These sentiments were, of course, only compounded by the Spanish-American war.

The year 1898 was indeed a crucial one. A brief colonial clash with the United

States, then a great power upstart, not only wrestled Cuba and other key overseas possessions away from Spain, but it dealt a profound and lasting blow to the nation's self- confidence. This defeat, almost immediately dubbed "El desastre," greatly eroded the fragile post-1876 political , exacerbating old schisms between “progressives” and “traditionalists” over the nature of constitutional citizenship as well as creating new debates, namely on the future of the Spanish state "after empire."58 Once able to boast that the sun didn’t set on its far-reaching colonies, Spain now found itself reevaluating its position within the European community, both among longstanding competitors such as

England and France, and also the newer contestants to global power: Germany, Belgium and Italy (Bretz, 70). Given the already traditional European view of Spain as “Other,”

Spanish writers at the turn-of-the-century, living in a now post-imperial Spain, debated increased contact with a fast-industrializing Europe that was forcefully colonizing the globe. Therefore, it is not surprising that some Spanish writers ended-up denouncing

European empire building, militarism and imperialism while also distancing themselves from “foreign influences” especially in the arts (Ibid, 112).

57 See Richard Herr. An Historical Essay on Modern Spain. LA: University of California Press 1974, pp. 81-2. 58 Paul Preston, The Triumph of Democracy in Spain. London: Routledge, 1987, p. 21. 110 Historically Spanish literary critics have emphasized only “the most eccentric” aspects of European Modernist production, thus making any possibility of comparisons with Spanish works easy to dismiss (Soufas, 50). In doing so, the Spanish claim their own unique national tradition which is based on a generational model instead of a period approach. Comprised of poets, dramatists, essayists and novelists, the collective later known as the “La generación de 1898”59 was coined by Azorín [pseudonym of José

Martínez Ruiz (1873-1967)] after he established an association between certain turn-of- the-century authors, based on literary traits and socio-political characteristics in their writing (Bretz, 61). Later, after General Francisco Franco engaged military aid from Nazi

Germany and Fascist Italy to defeat the Second Republic in 1939, a single, xenophobic perspective of national culture was adopted by Francoist scholars. They preferred the

“Generation of 1898” for its patriarchal, Castilian tradition, negating the association of

Spanish literature of the late nineteenth-century and early twentieth as being representative of the larger European milieu (Ibid, 20). Of course the problem of adopting a “generational” approach to literature is that not all of the authors of the period fit within the range of characteristics used to bind them together, thus excluding many important voices. Not only that, but in dismissing the association of their writers within a transnational context the visibility and reputation of these authors has suffered, thus explaining, in part, their general omission in European Modernist literary criticism

(Soufas, 49).

59 This argument was put forth by Azorín in a number of essays that appeared between 1905-1910, under the title “La generación de 98,” in the Spanish newspaper, ABC. It was later published in his book, Clásicos y modernos, in 1913. (Iturriarte, 162)

111 The predominance of conservative Spanish voices aside, the concept of

Modernism in the European context was very much present in the works of many Spanish authors and in the philosophical and literary debates of their time. In her book,

Encounters Across Borders, Bretz highlights ten postures of early Modernism seen in the

Spanish context as they appeared in the literature of the times; among these, a few salient features are: “Modernism breaks with the national past through international connections” (Ties with non-Spanish, European or American writers), “Modernism retains a link with the past, combining national traditions and international sources”

(Return to remote antecedents, Greek tragedy, Shakespeare, or classical Spanish drama),

“Modernism has practical social objectives” (Call to elevate Spanish cultural level through night school, university extension programs etc. ) and “Modernism is anti- materialist and anti-determinist“ (Rejection of commodification, industrialism and the promotion of authentic and individual artistic creation) .60 These ideas, and a vast many others that dominate the discourse on Modernist aesthetics and form, first take hold in

Spain principally through the influence of both Catalonian Modernism and Spanish

American modernismo.

Given Catalonia’s geographic proximity to and economic connections with

France, many of the European writers who were key to the Modernist movement were well-known in Barcelona in the 1880s and 1890s. Ibsen’s plays, Ruskin’s social ideas and studies published on Wagner and Nietzsche were all well-received in Barcelona; the

Catalan journal L’Avenç published works by Tolstoy, Ibsen and Maeterlinck, among others, and it was in L’Avenç that the term “Modernism” first appeared in Spain in 1884

(Bretz, 32). Catalan Modernism took shape through three separate forms: the “socially

60 See Bretz pages 39-56 112 progressive group,” which was associated with anarchist Jaume Brossa and L’Avenç, the strictly literary group which was headed by Santiago Rusiñol and an intermediate grouping among these two led by the journalist and poet, Joan Maragall (Ibid, 30). It was

Santiago Rusiñol who established the Modernist center, Cau Ferrat, which was frequented by intellectuals from all over Spain. This exposure led to multiple collaborations between Catalan and Madrid-based journals. For example, the Modernist journal Helios boasted contributions on this topic by important Castilian intellectuals

(José Ortega y Gasset, Juan Ramón Jiménez and Gregorio Martínez Sierra) and Catalan

Modernists (Santiago Rusiñol, José Carner, and Joan Maragall). In Madrid, Catalan

Modernism was seen as a hopeful new direction in literary thought, as the editors of the

Madrid-based journal Vida Nueva stated in 1898: “Barcelona tiene iniciativas, energías, entusiasmo, virilidad, y de allí nos vendrá la vida nueva, ya que en Madrid no se piensa sino en hacer política, hablar de la mar y acudir a los toros” (Ibid, 33-34). That same year, the Nicaraguan poet, Rubén Darío (1867-1916), whose book of poetry, Azul (1888), initiated the modernismo movement in Latin America, journeyed to Spain and commented that only in Catalonia did he encounter any real Modernism. However, that was soon to change as Modernist ideas steadily spread into twentieth-century Spanish thought.

Rubén Darío initially believed his Latin American modernismo to predate Catalan

Modernism, but later acknowledged that Barcelona’s influence on the rest of Spain had also affected the common sense of literary thought that Latin America shared with Spain.

Modernismo, much influenced by French Symbolism, is characterized by its escapist qualities (exotic landscapes intended to ofset the vulgarity of materialism and modernity),

113 its cosmopolitism and depoliticized renderings of modern life (Mejías-López, 78).

Spanish writers were vastly influenced by Latin American modernistas; the poet Juan

Ramón Jiménez and fellow Spanish writer, Francisco Villaespesa, contested that they had consumed a vast quantity of modernista poetry and fiction by authors such as Manuel

Díaz Rodríguez (Venezuela), Leopoldo Lugones (Argentina), Ricardo Jaimes Freyre

(Bolivia), Amado Nervo (Mexico) and Guillermo Valencia (Colombia) (Ibid, 109). Other prominent writers/poets in Spain acknowledged Darío’s influence on the peninsula, as

Ramón del Valle-Inclán dedicated his poem “Aleluya” to the Nicaraguan poet and

Antonio Machado did the same in his “Al Rubén Darío: (1904) (Bretz, 62-63).

Thus, modernismo became the only post-colonial literature to influence its European colonizer, and was seen as instrumental in transforming the literary field in Spain.61 Of course this did not sit well with some Spanish writers, such as the poet and member of the

“Generation of 27,” Pedro Salinas, who denied Latin American literary leadership in

Spain. In his “El problema del modernismo en España, o un conflicto entre dos espíritus”

(1938), he diminishes his prejudices in stating that Latin American modernistas were focused on “formal, poetic renovation,” while Spanish writers centered on an “analytical, profound, virile, and nationalist preoccupation” (Ibid, 37). Another Spanish novelist and critic, Juan Valera, took an intermediate position, specifically praising Darío’s Azul for its anti-Naturalism, but weary of the poet’s dismissal of religious faith and his focus on social instability and pessimism; these were some of the reasons that had caused a number of conservative Spanish intellectuals to fear foreign influences (Ibid, 35).

Nonetheless, even Azorín’s 1898 generational model, endorsed by these conservative critics, insists on the influence of foreign writers and intellectuals (Balzac, Ruskin,

61 See Alejandro Mejías-López’s book, The Inverted Conquest (2009). 114 Neitzsche, Verlaine, etc.) on the movement; therefore, as we turn our focus to the emergence of Modernist commedia dell’arte theatre in Spain, we see just how much these foreigners, especially the French Symbolists, influenced this form of Spanish theatre.62

French Symbolist poets/dramatists- Verlaine, Banville, Gautier, Laforgue and

Giraud-63 all protagonized the commedia dell’arte stock characters in their verses and plays in the mid-late nineteenth century.64 Familiar with was Spanish dramatist, Jacinto Benavente (1866-1954), who had been interested in puppet theatre since childhood and by age sixteen was already fluent in French (Diaz, 200). Benavente translated many French dramas into Spanish, and was known for his vast consumption of

French literature by his friends and colleagues; Verlaine is documented as being one of the authors he had studied in depth (Ferreres, 222). Given the influence of French

Symbolist poetry in the renderings of Modernist commedia plays, it comes as no surprise that Benavente was the earliest contributor in the Modernist period to the renovation of the commedia dell’arte in Spanish drama; he accomplished this with his collection of plays entitled Teatro fantástico (1892). In addition to the commedia motif, Benavente

62 Azorín himself wrote a play entitled “Comedia del arte,” although it doesn’t contain any stock characters nor commedic elements, except for a little improvisation. See Malcolm D. van Biervliet d’Overbroeck’s article on the subject in the Journal of Spanish Studies: “Azorín’s Comedia del arte and Angelita: auto sacramental: Two Misunderstood Titles, Two Misunderstood Plays.” 63 Although Albert Giraud was a Belgian Symbolist poet he wrote in French. 64 They are the subject of Paul-Marie Verlaine’s (1844-1896) collection Fêtes galantes (1869) (with titles such as “Pantomime” and “Clair de lune”) and Jadis et Naguère (1891) (including “Pierrot,” “Le Clown,” and “Le Pitre”) (King 245). Théodore de Banville (1823-1891) elevates Harlequin in his poem “Arlequin!” (1869), philosophizes about the stock characters in his essay “Le clown et le poète” (1879), dedicates the poems “Ancien Pierrot,” “Les Folies-Nouvelles” (both from Odes funabulesques) and “Madame Polichinelle”(Occidentales) to commedic themes as well as in his play, Le Baiser, (1887) (Forrest, 20). Théophile Gautier (1811-1872) incorporates the commedia dell’arte in his “Variations sur le de Venice” (1852) (Emaux et Camées) and his plays: Pierrot Posthume (1847) and Pierrot en Espagne (1847) (King 245). Jules Laforgue (1860-1887) concentrates on the Pierrot figure in his collections Les Complaintes (1885) (with titles such as “Complainte de Lord Pierrot,” “Autre Complainte de Lord Pierrot” and “Complainte de Noces de Pierrot”), and in L’Imitation de Notre-Dame la Lune (1886) there is a long sequence of poems entitled “” and “Locutions of Pierrot” (King, 247). Albert Giraud (1860-1929) is also principally inspired by Pierrot in his : rondels bergamasques, a collection of fifty poems published in 1884. 115 also included in these plays mythological figures, swans, princesses and other exotic figures, which were common elements of Modernist (and modernista) literature

(Sheehan, 41).65

Following Benavente, those Spanish playwrights and authors who were interested in breaking the Realist mold, in part due to their frustrations with the limitations of the conventional theatre, “...looked in particular in two directions: back to different moments and genres in the past- ancient , the , and timeless popular traditions (above all puppetry and farce)- and outside of Spain to contemporary and indeed Avant-garde playwrights then working in Europe and the United States” (Jiménez,

298). These directions are pursued by many dramatists of the period, including Gregorio

Martínez Sierra, Adrià Gual, Pio Barjoa, Jacinto Grau, Ramón del Valle-Inclán, E.

Ramírez Ángel and Federico García Lorca, all of whose specific interest in the “puppetry and farce” associated with the commedia dell’arte will be the focus of this chapter.66 The range of dramatic works that take their inspiration from commedia dell’arte theatre in

Spain can be divided into three categories: farce and pantomime, puppetry and dehumanized figures, for means of analysis. In documenting the individual works by

Spanish dramatists of this type of theatre, comparisons can be made with the previous chapter’s summary of other European contributions to prove that Spain was indeed a full participant in the movement and, more importantly, at its forefront.

3 A) Spanish Modernist Farce and Pantomime

65 These environments of fantasy were also imported from French symbolism. (Huerta Calvo, 13) 66 Although this chapter will provide an overview of the multiple ways in which Spanish dramatists depict the commedia dell’arte in their Modern renderings, I reserve some of the plays, namely five of them, for analysis in the following chapter. Observing how Benavente, Martínez Sierra and Valle-Inclán depict the Harlequin as a poet in these five plays, the highly unusual transformation of the buffoon into a poet deserves an in-depth investigation, which is the subject of Chapter 4. 116 Benavente’s Teatro Fantástico is considered the foundation of Spanish

Modernist67 theatre, and being at the forefront of the movement the collection was, as

Rubén Darío anticipated, not met with the critical recognition it deserved. Rubén Darío, was also strongly influenced by the commedia dell’arte motif, which was the subject of his “Canción de carnaval” and “El faisán” from his Prosas profanas (1896).68 Darío was forthwright in his praise of Teatro fantástico, “...una joya de libro...El alma perspicaz y cristalinamente femenina del poeta crea deliciosas fiestas galantes, perfumadas escenas, figurillas de abanico y tabaquera que en un ambiente de Watteau salen de las pinturas y sirven de receptáculo a complicaciones psicológicas y problemas de la vida” (Huerta

Calvo, 13). Watteau’s artwork portraying commedia types had been the inspiration for many of the French Symbolists’ usage of the genre; however in Spain, nineteenth-century literature did not pick-up on the commedia motif. Given the novelty of themes in Teatro fantástico, Benavente included in the prologues to both “Cuento de primavera” (included in Teatro fantástico) and later in his Los intereses creados (1907) instructions for the audience on how to appreciate the plays. GANIMEDES addresses the public in “Cuento de primavera,” insisting “Nada de reflexiones; vamos a soñar, y el autor, soñando, os invita a ello. Seguidle, si su sueño os interesa; si no, abstraed de él vuestra imaginación y soñad cada uno lo que mejor os plazca. Si un personaje habla de amor y no consigue interesaros, pensad en el vuestro, que sin duda os interesa...” Again in Los intereses creados “El autor sólo pide que aniñéis cuanto sea posible vuestro espíritu.” (86)

67 In having made a case for the existence of “Spanish Modernism,” I use the term throughout the rest of this dissertation. This too is the practice of Mary Lee Bretz in her study on Spanish Modernism from 1890- 1930, Encounters Across Borders, as she cites this general usage of “Modernism” as that having been “enjoyed at the turn of the century when initially employed to encompass the entire field of Spanish literature of the day under a single rubric” (21). 68 In both of these poems Pierrot is depicted as a poet, which David George, in his The History of the Commedia dell’Arte in Modern Hispanic literature, says is commonplace in French Symbolist poetry (77). 117 Whereas Teatro fantástico is often regarded as a “youthful experiment in dialogue techniques,” the reception of Los intereses creados (which will be analyzed in the next chapter) was very favorable, and the play is considered his crowning achievement leading up to his 1922 Noble Prize in literature (Sheehan, 41). In any event, Teatro fantástico, was pivotal in introducing the Modernist movement in Spanish drama. Referring to the collection and with respect to the commedia characters, Manuel Martínez Espada highlights the renovation of the genre: “El teatro de Benavente es observación. En sus obras los personajes no son polichinelas, sino hombres y mujeres en cuerpo y alma”

(Huerta Calvo, 12).

Teatro fantástico was originally comprised of four plays (including “Cuento de primavera”- which will be analyzed in Chapter Four) when it first appeared in 1892; a second edition was completed in 1905 which added the clearly commedic “Comedia italiana” and “La blancura de Pierrot” (Huerta Calvo, 11). “Comedia italiana” takes place during carnival, and in Spain (and also Europe) the commedia and carnival had been associated for centuries.69 As John Rudlin states, “When one has said that the commedia dell’arte is a manifestation which comes from tying dressing-up together with improvisation, one has already directly arrived at the ritual nature of several cultural processes whose origin stems from Carnival” (31). Ergo, there is nothing innovative about this coupling of themes; it is the argument of the play that conveys its Modernist voice. Colombina and Harlequin are the main protagonists of “Comedia italiana”. At the

69 In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries both of these themes are included in Spain, for example, in the painting of Goya (Los cómicos ambulantes) and writing of Bécquer “La ridiculez” in Ensayos y esbozos

(1862) (George, 27-28). “The tradition of harlequins, columbines and pierrots taking part in the Shrovetide carnival continues in Spain well into the twentieth century. However, its appearance not only in the carnival but also in , , film and in journalism in the early years of the century, probably owes less to Spanish carnival tradition than to the fact that the commedia was ‘in the air’ in both popular and high culture at the time” (George, 29)

118 start of the play COLOMBINA is remarking at her good fortune: “Tengo dieciocho años, soy bonita, tengo un amante que me adora y otro a quien adoro, un cofrecillo repleto de escudos y joyas y otro de cartas amorosas, flores secas y mil baratijas...Es carnaval y el día está hermoso. ¿Puede pedirse mayor felicidad?” (101). She is equally elated that her suitors won’t be competing for her attentions as POLICHINELA is sick in bed, leaving her love, ARLEQUÍN, to court her exclusively. As it is carnival she is keen to play a trick on ARLEQUÍN, but will not settle for prosaic play: “¡Cambiar de traje, de careta!...Eso se le ocurre a cualquiera...¡Ah! Ya di con ello. Me disfrazaré, le daré broma, pero mi careta será espiritual; me vestiré el alma de máscara...” (103). When ARLEQUÍN arrives dressed (comically) as Pierrot, he is shaken and confused by COLOMBINA’s rejection of his love, and her newfound spiritual dedication and adherence to the religious teachings of PADRE LEANDRO. The poetic ARLEQUÍN wastes no time in trying to win back her affections:

Tú renunciar al amor, al amor que es mi vida y esencia de la tuya...Pues si es pecado que me des tu cariño, pecado es que las flores me den fragancia; si eso eres tú, flor de los amores con besos por fragancia, y si tú pecas al besarme, el infierno debe estar alfombrado de flores.... Oleada de amor divino dijiste pues llamarada de amor diabólico. Un mar son muchas gotas de agua que pueden separarse; pero la llama es una sola...yo quiero arder contigo...(105).

The silver-tongued ARLEQUÍN is able to unmask COLOMBINA’s deception with his ardent affection, and both characters get a good laugh at the end of the play. Harlequin has a close association with the devil throughout his evolution, perhaps, as Rudlin states, because of the fact that Dante, in his Divine Comedy refers to a devil as Ellechino

(similar to Arlecchino) (76). Benavente infuses his ARLEQUÍN with poetic prose that

119 reveals no hint of the traditional scheming servant Arlecchino. As for COLOMBINA, she is young, pretty and independent just like the traditional Colombina. She further displays the traditional role of the character by being in love with Arlecchino but pursued by Il

Capitano, Pantalone, or in this case, POLICHINELLA (Rudlin, 128-130). The Modernist plays give her autonomy, and in them she is almost never the traditional maid of an innamorata, much like Pierrot’s (Pedrolino) and Arlecchino’s roles are no longer defined as servants, even though they may act in a similar capacity.70 Completing

COLOMBINA’s close adherence to the traditional Colombina, she too is unmasked, which is a clever detail, especially given that it is carnival. Apart from the renovation of the commedia motif, “Comedia Italiana” mocks the institutions of marriage and the church through COLOMBINA’s religious transformation, which the dramatic conventions of Romanticism (the other important literary movement of the nineteenth century) (Huerta Calvo, 45). However here the true Modernist message is contained in the prevailing of love and life over moral and religious obligation, even be it in jest.

With the “Blancura de Pierrot,” Benavente engages in the art of pantomime, which was exceedingly popular during the nineteenth-century French Symbolist movement. Evoking the mystery and horror present in many of these pantomimes

[Recalling Gauthier’s “The Old Clo’ Man” (“Pierrot Posthume”)] Benavente’s PIERROT is in love with COLOMBINA, and in order to elevate himself above his humble station of mill worker to seduce her, he decides to rob a miserly old woman, killing her. However he cannot scrub her blood nor the black ash from her fire off of his face. Outside the snow falls on his face, masking the guilt of his deed, and with white face he is trapped in

70 In Adrià Gual’s plays “Arlequí vividor” and “La serenata,” ARLEQUÍ’s role resembles that of a servant, although he isn’t one. 120 cold isolation without denouement. Evoking the sadness and loneliness of the Pierrot of

Symbolist poetry, Benavente concludes “¡Triste Pierrot, de fría blancura, como perdón sin amor y sin misericordia!” (128).

Following closely on the heels of Benavente was the dramatist, poet and theatre director, Gregorio Martínez Sierra (1881-1947).71 Seven years after Teatro fantástico was published he released his clearly anti-Realist Diálogos fantásticos (1899), which he dedicated to Benavente “...a usted que con alma de poeta y corazón de amigo me ha prestado su apoyo generoso en mi vida de arte” (Huerta Calvo, 19). Martínez Sierra joined Benavente in his interest in paratheatrical forms, such as pantomime and circus, which are both incorporated in his Las golondrinas. After reading about a circus spectacle that Benavente recalls in his Memorias, I could only speculate, given their close friendship, that Martínez Sierra bases, to some extent, his Las golondrinas on this account. In 1885 Benavente saw the Hanlon-Lees perform at the Teatro de la in

Madrid; in their circus act clowns presented a pantomime entitled Un viaje a Suiza. As

Huerta Calvo describes, “La pareja de clowns ingleses resultó fascinante para Benavente por el mensaje ambiguo de su pantomima, ejecutada con una gran violencia, de modo que era difícil deslindar lo que en ella había de cómico y de trágico” (51). Martínez Sierra had originally written the drama Saltimbanquis, which was converted into the zarzuela Las golondrinas (1913) with music by José María Usandizaga. This tragic/comic coupling of drama that unfolds under the big top is at the heart of Las golondrinas.

As we saw (in the previous chapter’s section on Italy) in the opera, I Pagliacci, the itinerant players (i pagliacci) performed a commedia dell’arte play that resembled the

71 See Patricia W. O’Connor’s book, Gregorio and María Martínez Sierra, for the role that María had, in most cases, in writing Gregorio’s plays herself. 121 conflict in the actors’ own lives to such an extent that reality and fiction became blurred, leading to the tragic death of NEDDA (Colombina) by her cuckolded husband CANIO

(Pierrot). In Las golondrinas we are faced with some similarities in storyline, as a family of actor-acrobats travel from fairground to circus, and put on a commedia dell’arte play.

Here the main character, PUCK (the English form of the Italian Pulcinella), is the boyfriend of CECELIA. Motivated solely by her desire for fame and riches, CECELIA rejects PUCK’s unfaltering love for her and ultimately leaves the troupe in search of these ambitions. PUCK does not seem to recover from this rejection but continues on with the humble troupe, which eventually gains notoriety and is invited to perform “en un gran circo de una gran ciudad” (120). There they showcase a commedia dellárte pantomime, and as the nineteenth-century French pantomimes all centered on Pierrot as the main protagonist (in the tradition of Deburau) so does Martínez Sierra. PUCK takes the lead as Pierrot, opposite his Colombina, LINA, another member of the troupe who has long been in love with PUCK. These characters are presented to the audience for the most part in their traditional roles. COLOMBINA is described as “joven y bonita; coqueta y alegre,” as her traditional self, but here she is not a servant, rather the wife of

POLICHINELA. POLICHINELA is visibly identified by his traditional double hunchback and is “viejo y sabio” (wise being more a characteristic of Pantalone).

PIERROT “es un poco más joven y sabe un poco menos” and is also a musician (155). In

French commedia productions Pierrot was often playing music, and Antoine Watteau

(1684-1721) sometimes captures him this way in his series of Fêtes Galantes paintings, where, for instance, in La Partie Quarree (The Foursome) he is depicted with a mandolin. Although the commedia dell’arte element of Las golondrinas is a pantomime,

122 the storyline is true to an Italian commedia scenari, in that there is an amorous conquest, a messy complication and a comic outcome. In it POLICHINELA discovers his wife,

COLOMBINA, with PIERROT, who pretends to fall dead- a state that COLOMBINA attributes to his poverty, which is what brought him begging at her door. However, the

“triumph of love” is the parting sentiment in the spoken epilogue to the pantomime, albeit a “dulce mentira,” (158) as PUCK says, as “...el amor, respetable público, aunque en la vida se muere de verdad, en la pantomima resucita siempre” (155). PUCK’s own love is resurrected when he encounters Cecilia at the circus, having become a sensational act in the performance world herself. When her presence angers PUCK, CECILIA feigns affection for him; however CECELIA’s deceit only drives PUCK to murder her

(Pulcinella is known for his violent temperament). Thus, like I Pagliacci, the zarzuela ends on a tragic note and LINA’s reality mimics her COLOMBINA’s situation, as she is left pining for a “dead man.” Therefore, although Martínez Sierra is clearly influenced by

Benavente’s appropriation of French Symbolist themes, he demonstrates in Las golondrinas that mixing of fantasy and Realism that so many other European dramatists also incorporated in their works.

In Barcelona these parathetrical themes of circus and mime, as seen in Las golondrinas, were very much a part of the Avant-garde scene. Also popular were puppet show, such as those put on at the Quatre Gats café that Picasso, Ramon Casas, Santiago

Rusiñol and Adrià Gual frequented (Rubio Jiménez, 267). Adrià Gual (1872-1943) is considered one of the most important theatrical directors of his time, as he aimed to modernize Catalan theatre in both an aesthetic and technical sense; in addition to being a director, he was also a stage designer, playwright, teacher and founder (in 1913) of the

123 Escola Catalana d’Art Dramàtic (Rubio Jiménez, 267). Gual directed plays at the Teatre

ĺntim (Intimate Theatre), where along with performances by his Catalan and Spanish contemporaries he staged many foreign (classical) productions (including Sophocles,

Shakespeare, Molière, Goldoni, Goethe, Ibsen, Hauptmann and Shaw) (Rubio Jiménez,

268). In 1912 he presented a lecture entitled El geni de la comèdia (The genius of

Comedy) at the Teatro de la Princesa, which was followed by the performance of his commedia play Arlequí vividor.72 In his lecture he elevates the universality of the eternal

“race of Harlequins,” stating that the commedia dell’arte is the true “genius” of

Modernist comedy:

I es que la raça dels Arlequins es léterna raça còmica, es la condensació de tots els temps, l’esperit de totes les èpoques, decorat amb trajos particulars, emancipant- se de tot moment exclusiu que pogués empettiir-la...(10). Tots els creadors, poetes, músics i pensadors s’han fet seus els individus de la gran familia arlequiniana, perquè aquesta els ha sabut acaparar amablement mercès a l’universalitat del seu màgic comès. Ells han sigut i segueixen essent el veritable geni de la comedia moderna, perquè en ells tot es comedia, i la comedia no pot viure sens ells (12).

Arlequí vividor conveys a slight departure from the traditional commedia characters’ stereotypes while highlighting in true commedia style many comedic interactions between the protagonists. ARLEQUĺ is married to AULARIA who calls him a “xerraire” (charlatan),73 “gandul” (idler) and a “mal home” (bad man) (19) as he begs her for money, which she claims he intends to spend on COLOMBINA. Although

Arlecchino was known to be devilish, he normally embodied a figure that was both good

72 This lecture precedes the text of Arlequí vividor and the page numbers correspond to this edition: Gual, Adrià. Arlequí vividor. Barcelona: no publisher, 1912. 73 All translations are my own. 124 and bad at times, whereas here ARLEQUĺ is entirely selfish with regards to his wife. As for his interactions with the rest of the stock characters, ARLEQUĺ dons his traditional cap of scheming servant as he orchestrates a poetry contest between two suitors for

PANTALON’s daughter, COLOMBINA. Deftly seeking a profit from all of those parties involved he then spends his “earnings” by going out on the town with the hardly innocent

COLOMBINA. Not only is this ARLEQUĺ exceedingly witty and manipulative, he also has a poetic side; this feature seems to elevate him above his rank, thus making him a reasonable choice for judging a poetry contest. ARLEQUĺ is not the only one in his cast of characters that Gual choose to embellish with new characteristics; Gual’s DOCTOR is not the traditional braggart dilettante, pretending to show off his knowledge through false latinisms, although he does speak a single word of latin and two more in Italian to

ARLEQUĺ. This DOCTOR is outwardly manipulative, seeking to turn a profit himself from his friend PANTALON’s situation, and sees in ARLEQUĺ a worthy accomplice. As

ARLEQUĺ and the DOCTOR hide behind the masks of artificial generosity, so too does

COLOMBINA hide her true self through her timidity and modesty during the judging process: “Sempre fingint ignocencia i timidesa” (38). However when given the chance

COLOMBINA is quick to engage ARLEQUĺ in social plans, and shows a recklessness of youth that contradicts her traditional role as a rational and intelligent servant. Also in

Gual’s play ISABEL˙LA is the servant to COLOMBINA, and not the reverse, and

TARTAGLIA is not an old stuttering man, but a rich suitor.74 The CAPITÀ or

Matamoros does not diverge from his traditional form here; he threatens action with every misunderstanding only to prove himself the most cowardly, as, for instance, a cat

74 See John Rudlin’s characterization of the traditional Tartaglia in his Commedia dell’Arte An Actor’s Handbook p154-156. 125 streaks through the room and he climbs up on his chair in horror. With these characterizations “Arlequí Vividor” does not suggest any social reflection of the times; the commedic genre is used by Gual, as he states in his lecture El geni de la comèdia, as the perfect medium for creating a comedy.

In 1916, as director of the Escola Catalana d’Art Dramàtic, Gual participated in another conference series where he spoke about the commedia dell’arte: “La italiana representa ésser els jòchs d’infantesa del artista teatral..,” somewhat evoking Benavente’s prologue to Los intereses creados (155). Following the lecture75 was a performance of his commedia play, La serenata (estudi de farsa italiana) (1916). The play is based on

MATAMOROS’ (Il Capitano) preposterously comic plan to woo ISABELA by using his absurd verses to serenade her. He calls on the help of ARLEQUĺ and his servant,

COLOMBINA, while ESCARAMOUCHE is summoned to set MATAMOROS’ verse to music. ARLEQUĺ fills Arlecchino’s traditional role of servant, able to take advantage of the ignorant, blundering MATAMOROS for monetary gain. ARLEQUĺ is no fool, and shows a very prudent side in his dealings with MATAMOROS: “Anèm a lo que interessa, y dexèm tota filosofía pels temps d’estiu, qu’es quan els homes solen estar en vaga” (159). Another down-to-earth character is played by COLOMBINA, who tries to pacify the angry crowd who has been roused from their slumber by MATAMOROS’ bellowing; while everyone passes around a crying baby, she rocks it to sleep again.

Although she is normally the servant of one of the female lovers, COLOMBINA resembles her traditional self in her love for Harlequin; ARLEQUĺ also pursues his traditional love interest, as he tries to have an amorous moment with COLOMBINA

75 75 This speech prefaces La serenata, and all page numbers correspond to this edition: Gual, Adrià. La serenata. In vol. XVIII num. 303 of Lectura popular. Biblioteca d’autors . Barcelona: Ilustració Catalana, n.d. 126 when the lights go out at one point. ESCARAMOUCHE is cast in his Scaramuccia’s traditional role as servant, but he is not boastful like Il Capitano, whom he traditionally shared features with.76 All in all Gual, as with Arlequí vividor, creates another vibrant farce in La serenata, a characteristic that we see also in Pio Baroja’s Arlequín mancebo de botica o los pretendientes de Colombina.

Pío Baroja (1872-1956) was one of the principal novelists of the generation of

’98. He also penned some dramatic works, one of which was entirely dedicated to the commedia dell’arte tradition: Arlequín mancebo de botica o los pretendientes de

Colombina (1926) Like many of his contemporaries, although in strong opposition to his narrative work, Baroja found no place for Realism/Naturalism in the theatre: “Pensar que se pueden llevar figuras de hombre reales al Teatro, creo que es una ilusión con que se engaña un poco a la gente joven”(Baroja, 1966:9). Therefore, in the spirit of anti-

Naturalism, he created a comic farce in Arlequín mancebo de botica..., with no other apparent motivation than to entertain with pure theatricality and humor. Baroja’s

ARLEQUĺN definitely takes his place as a scheming servant figure, working for

PANTALÓN in his pharmacy while trying to prevent any suitors from flirting with

PANTALÓN’s daughter, COLOMBINA. Although this ARLEQUĺN is witty he’s also doltish at times, and his puppy-love for COLOMBINA resembles that of a puppet as he heaps adulations on her: “Me muero por ti, Colombina. Mi corazón hace tipitín, tipitín, al verte a ti...”(96). COLOMBINA is also painted in a ridiculous light, as throughout the play she is only motivated by the need to attend to her canary, rushing off to “poner agua al canario (96); poner una hierbecita al canario (100); poner una hoja de lechuga al

76 See John Rudlin’s characterization of Scaramuccia in his Commedia dell’Arte An Actor’s Handbook. P151-154 127 canario (106),” a task that adds humor to an otherwise simple role. COLOMBINA’s father, PANTALÓN, is a faithful interpretation of the Italian Pantalone, in that he has a high regard for his intelligence, is a businessman and a widowed father. Baroja does embellish his PANTALÓN with one of Il Dottore´s signature characteristics- the noticeably erroneous use of Latin for self-important means- thus heightening the comedy:

PANTALÓN.—Tú recuerda siempre, en los casos apurados, aquella relación admirable, creo que de Celso: Quis, quid, quibus, auxilis, cur quommodo et quando. Con eso, ya lo tienes todo resuelto. Y quitada la causa, no te preocupes, porque Sublata causa tollitur efectus (100).

As David George observes, “Baroja owes more to Spanish popular types than to the

Italian commedia dellárte for some of the characters of the play. EL SARGENTO, for instance, speaks very much like the stock Andalusian figure from the zarzuela tradition.”

EL SARGENTO is one of the “suitors” interested in COLOMBINA, already distrusted for leaving a local girl in an “estado interesante” (99). ARLEQUĺN gets rid of him quickly by convincing him that COLOMBINA is down in the cavern killing rats, while it’s really the dog that EL SARGENTO finds down there. And in his colorful Andalusian accent EL SARGENTO explains to PANTALÓN that “El cazo es que el perro de uzted me ha dado un bocado y me ha quitado un peaso de pantalón, y grasias que no me ha arrancado un peaso de carne” (102). There are many levels of humor in the play, which is sometimes crass [when ARLEQUĺN tells COLOMBINA “Yo no te haré nunca un chico...es decir, te lo haré si tú me das el permiso; si no, no, rica mía” (104)] and sometimes scatalogical (when ARLEQUĺN and PANTALÓN discuss the Mother

Superior´s constipation). Then of course in the true Italian commedia tradition there are many verbal puns. An example of this occurs in the exchange between EL

128 VETERINARIO and ARLEQUĺN, when the former boasts about all the money that he has in the bank:

ARLEQUÍN: Aquí un señor asegura que un banco más de la ciudad se ha hundido. EL VETERINARIO: El mío es seguro. Es el Banco de la Isla de Madera, y una cosa de madera no se hunde tan fácilmente (104).

When these comments get him nowhere, ARLEQUÍN resolves to mock EL

VETERINARIO’s profession calling him a “vete urniario,” and then “...como a los médicos se les dice matasanos, a los veterinarios hay que llamarlos mataburros o matavacas” (105). Throughout the farce Arlequín deftly plays to each suitors’ weakness in securing their departure from the Pharmacy. Just as the suitors realize that they have been sent on a fool's errand by ARLEQUÍN and set-out to rough him up, he is recognized by the footman of his duchess mother who had lost him as a small child and is quickly able to confirm his identity. Needless to say, the suitors comically changing their tune at this news, and fall over themselves, offering him their services. Thus ARLEQUÍN is able to marry his beloved COLOMBINA, now having the means and position to suit her. It was very common for a commedia farce to end in marriage, however this reversal of fortune, or , recalls a motif from a Siglo del Oro drama (such as Lope de

Vega’s El perro del hortelano or Tirso’s El vergonzoso en palacio) more than any traditional commedia dell’arte scenario.

Baroja was a strong proponent of modernizing the early Modernist Spanish stage in the same way that Jacques Copeau in France had proposed “‘El que quiera hacer algo en el Teatro tiene que emplear figuras ya viejas, aunque con etiquetas modernas” (Baroja,

1966:8). However, there is little innovation in Baroja’s Arlequín mancebo de botica, and

129 one can only wonder what modernizations he had in mind in crafting this bufonada.77

Even COLOMBINA’s female empowerment at the end of the play, in the form of a long list of questions that demand ARLEQUÍN’s respect, only adds to the comic ambiance.

No matter the message, these Modernist renovations of commedia dell’arte theatre enlivened the Spanish stage.

3 B) Modernist Spanish Puppetry

As recorded in the previous chapter, Modernist writers and directors throughout

Europe were very critical of the abilities of actors, and found their role to be laden with limitations. Craig aimed to substitute the actor with his “übermarionette;” Meyerhold sought to mechanize their bodies and many other dramatists forewent the complicated theories and rigorous training programs, resolving to replace the actor altogether with marionettes. In Belgium, Maeterlinck postulated on who would be the successor of the actor: statue? shadow? reflection? projected images of a symbolic nature? wax figures? puppet-statues? (Lavaud, 363). These ideas were experimented with in a play by

Benavente, El encanto de una hora (1892), where two porcelain figures atop columns,

Merveilleuse (female) and Incroyable (male), come to life for an hour by means of some supernatural power, and philosophize about life and love from the perspective of both objects and subjects. That these Modernist writers and directors, seeking purity in the theatre turn to marionettes is not surprising. Given that there are two different types of signs present in theatre, the conventional (ie: Painted scenery on a backdrop) and the reality of the actor’s body, the use of costumes, make-up, masks and lighting effects diminishes this “reality” but it does not eliminate the actor completely (Clayton, 46).

77 The play ends with the character Brígida declaring “Aquí termina la bufonada de Arlequín, mancebo de botica” (114). 130 Therefore to unify the signs, thus “purifying” the presentation, the use of puppets results in a theatre thoroughly of convention.

The Spanish writer and critic Pérez de Ayala situated the commedia dell’arte alongside the European puppet theatre in his work, Las máscaras: “...la commedia dell´arte era un tinglado dominical de plazuela, al modo del Guignol, en Francia, y el

Punch and Judy, en Inglaterra.” (571) In Spain Jacinto Benavente was the first of his contemporary playwrights to dramatize the commedia dell’arte characters under the banner of puppet theatre in Los intereses creados (1907). Following in this pursuit was E.

Ramírez Ángel (1873-1928) with his Drama en un bazar (1911); however, Ramírez

Ángel’s protagonists are department store dolls, unlike Benavente’s humans that resemble puppets in their actions. Ramírez’s drama is situated in “Uno de esos bazares deslumbradores donde cierta muchedumbre pintoresca vive la paz de una existencia sin

Código, sin Cronología, sin Muerte y sin Paraíso; donde florece eternamente renovada, la juventud, en toda ocasión jovial, de los juguetes” (951). The main protagonists, figuring among every class of toys, are borrowed from the commedia dell’arte: ARLEQUÍN,

POLICHINELA, CAPITÁN, a Columbina-like doll named CLORINDA, and PIERROT- who was sold in the “...despoblación inaudita que no tendría poetas que llorarla ni historiadores para referirla,” otherwise known as the Christmas rush (952). ARLEQUÍN uses this shocking loss of companions as the pretext for a mobilization to flee the bazaar and “la tristeza de haber sido esclavos siempre,” (954) not to mention the certain fate that awaits them in the hands of those children “llenos de un afán destructor”(955). Through his cunning and well-supported arguments, ARLEQUÍN is able to rally the dolls, for which case David George describes him “...as a demagogue unable to control the revolt

131 of the puppets when it comes” (George, 49). POLICHINELA is the only one to call into question the ardent support of this pursuit, reminding the dolls that “Estamos en España: en España hay bandoleros, hay guardias civiles: todas ellos suelen tener hijos y acostumbran á obsequiarlos como pueden...” (958). Ramírez appears to have a studied knowledge of the commedia dell’arte characters. His CAPITÁN stays true to the original character in only being interested in military or amorous pursuits: “O guerrear ó enamorarme;” (957) he is, of course, the first to shy away: “La ley impone el más fuerte.

Yo he oído decir que el pez gordo se come al chico (953). His Colombina, CLORINDA, is also in her classic role as a beautiful youth in love with ARLEQUÍN, “seducida por su apostólica voz. (955) At the same time, Ramírez depicts ARLEQUÍN and

POLICHINELA through the French lens. ARLEQUÍN is the central figure advancing the plot, and as we see in many Modernist depictions he is also somewhat of a poet, described as having “maravillosa elocuencia” (958). POLICHINELA, although classically at odds with authority, the rival of Arlequín and definitely the “malhumorado y venenoso” (958) character in his traditional form, is likened to the French Polichinelle as “Frente á la impasible luna ha comprobado, en efecto, como hubo de indicarle un compañero lenguaraz, que es jorobado, con una joroba monstruosa que hincha sus espaldas y su pecho ruin” (958). This description of the moon evokes the 19th century

French art and poetry that is usually associated with Pierrot (whose costume resembles that of Pulcinella’s). Another French quality is the grotesque element of puppetry that became associated with the commedia dell’arte in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which in this play is included in the description of “Estos picaros muñecos, creados bajo el humorismo de un caricaturista sagaz,” the“muñecos grotescos” who come out of the

132 shadows (955).78 However, apart from these French influences and the sharing of some similarities with Benavente’s Los intereses creados, Drama en un bazar is also clearly inspired by Hans Christian Andersen’s The Brave Tin Soldier (1838), which the doll

PEPONAS retells in her cautionary letter to the toys of the bazaar. Notwithstanding,

Ramírez deftly uses the commedia characters in their traditional roles yet with overtones that place them firmly in the Modernist context.

Drama en un bazar, may well be a predecessor to Jacinto Grau’s (1877-1958) El señor de Pigmalión (1921), as it depicts another revolt of the dolls, but in this case the inspiration obviously comes from the Greek of Pygmalion and Galatea. Although there are no commedia dell’arte protagonists, the influence of the commedia is apparent

(for PIGMALIÓN and therefore Grau) in the tenth scene of the prologue, where

PIGMALIÓN, the legendary puppet maker, recalls his early fascination with puppets:

Cuando niño, vi aquí, en Madrid, casualmente, en la colección particular de un inglés muy rico, unos muñecos antiguos de palo, maravillosos, construidos por aquel célebre Juanelo, relojero de Carlos V, y por Vaucanson. Esos autómatas se movían y andaban de un modo perfecto. Me impresionaron hondamente. Luego como si fuese mi destino que me los pusiese delante, tuve ocasión de ver muñecos japoneses y chinos, carátulas prodigiosas y dos muñecas hechas por Lafitte Daussat, que eran una acabada imitación de la mujer. Salí de España, y en Nuremberg, esa Jauja infantil, donde se crean tanto juguetes, me interesé por la fabricación de los fantoches; pero un día, viendo en un Museo, caretas de Debureau (sic), caras descoloridas de Pierrot, con las ventanas de la nariz dilatadas; caretas de bronce del Japón y de madera laqueada; máscaras de la comedia italiana, unas de cera pintada, otras de seda, y algunas de gasa extendida sobre hilos de alambre; caretas de Venecia, con expresión enigmática; un

78 The “grotesque” is an aesthetic that the Spanish playwright, Valle Inclán highlights in his depictions of commedia dell’arte characters which we will later analyze as well 133 verdadero compendio, en fin, de histrionismo hiriente y heterogéneo, un mundo de muecas, de geniales deformaciones plásticas...Viendo todo eso, nació en mí la idea de crear artificialmente el actor ideal, mecánico, sin vanidad, sin rebeldías, sumiso al poeta creador, como la masa en los dedos de los escultores... (176-177).

Grau’s Avant-garde dissatisfaction with actors is also made apparent here, as his

PIGMALIÓN is driven to create the “ideal actor,” which although deceivingly human, is far superior as a puppet. The seventeen marionettes that PIGMALIÓN has created to act on stage all have names that come from the Spanish tradition: Juan El Tonto,

Don Lindo, El Capitán Araña, Mingo Revulgo and El Tío Paco, to name a few (Segal,

138). These marionettes therefore act as stock characters in a sense, recalling, of course, those of the commedia dell’arte. In addition to Jacinto Grau, Ramón del Valle-Inclán

(1866- 1936) and Federico García Lorca also included puppet theatre in their dramatic works. Traces of the commedia dell’arte can be seen in Lorca’s El retablillo de don

Cristóbal (1930) and Valle-Inclán’s Los cuernos de don Friolera (1921).

Valle-Inclán, one of the most innovative of the twentieth-century dramatists, was very drawn to the marionette tradition for its metaphorical duality in the expression of his social and political criticisms. In his plays he portrays his ‘human’ subjects as manipulated like marionettes on strings by “collective social ” or the “national spirit” (Segal 146). In a 1921 interview with El Heraldo de Méjico, Valle-Incán described his new genre of puppet theatre:

[...] – Estoy haciendo algo nuevo, distinto a mis obras anteriores. Ahora escribo teatro para muñecos. Es algo que he creado y que yo titulo “Esperpentos”. Este teatro no es representable para actores, sino para muñecos, a la manera del teatro

134 “Di Piccoli”79 en Italia. De este género he publicado Luces de bohemia, que apareció en la revista España, y Los cuernos de don Friolera, que se publicó en La Pluma. Esta modalidad consiste en buscar el lado cómico en lo trágico de la vida misma (Lavaud, 364). In the “esperpento” Los cuernos de don Friolera (1930), the influence of the commedia dell’arte is prominent in its metatheatrical aspects, the classic commedia love triangle of the cuckolded husband, his unfaithful wife and her lover, and the acrobatic and musical aspects written into the text. The play begins with a fairground-like marionette show presented by a BULULÚ (puppeteer) who foreshadows the central drama with his presentation of the grotesque murder by Lieutenant DON FRIOLERA of his unfaithful girlfriend. Likening the BULULÚ’s play to a commedia dell’arte sketch (which traditionally unfolded with a happy ending) are two intellectuals, DON MANOLITO and

DON ESTRAFALARIO who comment on it seeming like “teatro napolitano” (130).

These two characters are similarly ridiculed for their pedantic nature and fascination with the mundane, much like the traditional Dottore. In the primary action of the play we are presented to Lieutenant DON FRIOLERA as he sits in a sentry box that mimics to some level a puppet stage box. In this scene he receives an anonymous note, which plants the suspicion in his head that his wife, LORETA, is having an affair. Torn by his love for his wife and daughter and the strict military code of honor that dictates death for adultery, he takes this gossip as fact, instead of the fiction that it is. In some ways DON FRIOLERA resembles the traditional Italian clown, Pulcinella. As he contemplates granting life or death to his beloved LORETA for her apparent cuckolding, the situation parallels the symbolic nature of Pulcinella’s white costume (life) and black mask (death).

79 “Teatro di Piccoli” was created in Italy by Vittorio Podrecca in 1914 as a children’s theatre, where marionettes and dolls were the protagonists of the plays. (González, 86) 135 Traditionally a vicious and cruel hothead, quick to shed blood, this Pulcinella-Friolera is fierce in murdering his wife, but his genuine love for his child is uncharacteristic of the

Italian farsante. DON FRIOLERA also recalls the Pulcinella’s of early twentieth-century art as he stands with guitar in hand. Both the Tuscan artist, Gino Severini, in his

“Pulcinella with guitar” (1921), and Pablo Picasso in his “Punchinello with Guitar”

(1920) depict this commedia figure with guitar in hand. Musical performance was always featured in commedia dell’arte sketches, and in Los cuernos de Don Friolera, there is no lack of music accompaniment to the text: “El Bululú teclea un aire de fandango en su desvencijada zanfoña” (126). DON FRIOLERA “recorre la guitarra con una falseta y rasguea el acompañamiento de una copla, que canta con voz quebrada” (178) and in a scene with his dear daughter “Se percibe el pueril y cristalino punteado de su caja de música” (146). At the same time the play situates itself in the Modernist age with its incorporation of vivid colors and the protagonism of the moon, “en el claro de la luna,” to reference those French influences on Modernist commedia. Although Valle-Inclan’s purpose is to ridicule the Spanish military’s code of honor, he is deft in costuming his criticisms with elements of the commedia dell’arte theatre while also magnifying his metaphor with the use of grotesque puppets.

In García Lorca’s El retablillo de don Cristóbal (1930), we also see in the main character, DON CRISTÓBAL, a Pulcinella-like figure, an association intended by the author in giving him the full name “Don Cristóbal de Polichinela.”80 In his traditional

Italian role, Pulcinella could represent a master, husband or servant, and in this play DON

CRISTÓBAL/Pulcinella is a combination of all of these. Soon to wed DOÑA ROSITA,

80 Don Cristóbal is also the main protagonist in García Lorca’s “Los títeres de Cachiporra. Tragicomedia de don Cristóbal y la señá Rosita.” Also, “Polichinela” is the Spanish form of the Italian “Pulcinella.” 136 DON CRISTÓBAL informs her mother that he does not speak Italian, but “en mi juventud estuve en Francia y en Italia, sirviendo a un tal Pantaleón”(207). Master of his own affairs now, he works as a medical doctor (profession not traditionally practiced by

Pulcinella) adding another comically-grotesque element to the play, as he kills his patient but triumphs by now having the funds to marry. Pulcinella is often associated with violence, and therefore this comes as no surprise. Additionally characteristic of Pulcinella is his advanced age and temperament, both of which are attributed to DON

CRISTÓBAL, who is “malo” (193) and “ya viejo”(203). DON CRISTÓBAL is cuckolded, in the tradition of the Italian scenari, by his Colombina-like ROSITA, who humorously displays her crass love of men by putting to rhyme a long list names she’d happily be seduced by. Not only does ROSITA share kisses with the POET (traditionally it is Harlequin who carries on an affair with Colombina, thus hinting at the Harlequin-

Poet association that surfaces in some of the commedia-inspired Modernist plays), but she also gives birth, as DON CRISTÓBAL angrily learns, to her fifth child soon after their union.

The POET is introduced in the prologue as he who has written the play, and therefore acts both as author and protagonist. The interjections of the POET and the

DIRECTOR at the beginning of the play contribute to its highly “theatrical” nature with this incorporation of metatheatrical elements. Moreover these interruptions recall strongly of Blok’s Balaganchik, and the fairground tradition of both puppet theatre and commedia dell’arte theatre abroad (outside of Italy). Lorca’s intention in utilizing puppet theatre

(with these trace elements from the commedia dell’arte genre) came from his belief that

137 the key to the regeneration of commercial theatre in Spain was to return to those forms with “popular” roots. From the first lines of the prologue he transmits this message:

El poeta que ha interpretado y recogido de labios populares esa farsa de guiñol tiene la evidencia de que el público culto de esta tarde sabrá recoger, con inteligencia y corazón limpio, el delicioso y duro lenguaje de los muñecos (191).

It was also Lorca’s firm belief that “El teatro debe abandonar la atmósfera abstracta de las salas reducidas, su clima estrecho de experimentación de élite, e ir a las masas,” and he repeats the importance of popular theatre throughout El retablillo de don Cristóbal

(Hernández, 153). As David George observes, through writing this play Lorca explores

Andalusian folklore while “linking it with a wider European tradition,” (46) namely puppet theatre; and although Harlequin’s name appears but once in the play, he is still prominent as “belonging to the same extended happy family of puppets as his European relatives”(46):

...a don Cristóbal el andaluz, primo del Bululú gallego y cuñado de la tía Norica, de Cádiz; hermano de Monsieur Guiñol, de París, y tío de don Arlequín, de Bérgamo, como a uno de los personajes donde sigue pura la vieja ensencia del teatro. (216)

Demonstrating a more direct association with the commedia dell’arte than in the puppet dramas of Los cuernos de Don Friolera and El Señor de Pigmalión, El retablillo de Don

Cristóbal encapsulates those commedic elements of humor, musical accompaniment and fidelity to the Italian stock characters which, when combined with the protagonism of both the DIRECTOR and POET evoke both a timeliness and Modernist appeal.

3 C) Modernist Dehumanization and Beyond

138 During European Modernism (again, roughly 1890-1930) these playwrights mentioned who incorporated the commedia dell’arte in their farces, pantomimes and puppet shows (albeit with human actors emulating the movements of marionettes) initiated in Spanish drama, starting with Benavente, a dehumanization of the actor.81

Huerta Calvo cites Benavente’s characteristic of dehumanization to that almost simultaneously accomplished by Alfred Jarry in his 1896 Ubu roi, (which was a precursor to the movement), thus creating a foundation that lead to more radical deconstructions of the actor by Craig and Meyerhold (24). This tendency to dehumanize art, as it also relates to literary art, is expounded on by José Ortega y Gasset in his 1925 La deshumanización del arte, where he addresses the concept of “pure art” that many a Modernist strived for in returning to popular forms of theatre:

Even though pure art may be impossible there doubtless can prevail a tendency toward a purification of art. Such a tendency would affect a progressive elimination of the human, all too human, elements predominant in romantic and naturalist production (12).

The level of dehumanization accomplished by Benavente at the start of Modernism, passes to another extreme by the end of the period with Federico García Lorca’s Así que pasen cinco años (1931) and El público (1929-1930).

In Así que pasen cinco años, ARLEQUÍN joins PAYASO in being two apparently non-human figures (clearly non-human are El MANIQUÍ and various MÁSCARAS that appear). ARLEQUÍN bares no resemblance to Arlecchino, not even in dress, as he is clad in “nergro y verde” (292). He carries “dos caretas, una en cada mano y ocultas en la

81 In the prologue to Benavente’s Los intereses creados, he emphasizes the dehumanization of his characters by saying that “no son ni semejan hombres y mujeres, sino muñecos o fantoches de cartón y tarpo, con groseros hilos...(86). 139 espalda,”(292) one with an “expresión dormida” and another with an “alegrísima expresión,” (293) which transmits, in my opinion, a falsity of emotion that accentuates his non-human persona. ARLEQUÍN’s appearance is interpolated in the action of the play in a mysterious forest setting, where among the trees is “un teatro rodeado de cortinas barrocas con el telón echado” (292). Although there is no formal “play-within- a-play,” the concept is evoked by the presence of the stage and by the interactions between ARLEQUÍN and PAYASO:

ARLEQUÍN. (A voces y como si estuviera en el circo.) ¡Señor hombre, acuda! (Aparece un espléndio PAYASO...) (297). PAYASO. (Dando una bofetada de circo al ARLEQUIN.) ¡Toma casa! ARLEQUÍN. (Cae al suelo gritando.) ¡Ay, que me duele, que me duele! ¡Ayy! (312).

Here ARLEQUÍN and PAYASO serve to mock and confuse the MUCHACHA and then the JOVEN, who find themselves trying to exit the woods. These non-human entities also symbolize death; the author transmits this symbolism in his description of PAYASO, with “Su cabeza empolvada dará sensación de calavera” (297) and suggests the fact in

ARLEQUÍN’s black and green costume- colors that herald death in Lorca’s work

(George, 148). Definitely a departure from Arlecchino’s droll persona, ARLEQUÍN joins the Harlequins of some of the other Modernist playwrights, with his poetic dialogue.

ARLEQUÍN reveals a number of contrary ideas at the center of this play (sueño/vida, sueño/tiempo, vida/muerte, alba/noche, voz/sliencio) much like his contrasting masks:

ARLEQUÍN. El Sueño va sobre el Tiempo flotando como un velero. Nadie puede abrir semillas en el corazón del Sueño. 140

As David George observes, as these dehumanized figures (ARLEQUÍN and PAYASO) do not belong to any specific time period, they destroy any notion of Naturalism in the theatre (George, 148) However “dehumanized” ARLEQUÍN may appear in this play, he is even more so as EL TRAJE DE ARLEQUIN in Lorca’s El público. First being worn by the DIRECTOR, this TRAJE later appears solo, spouting both sensical and non- sensical speech: “Tengo frío. Luz eléctrica. Pan. Estaban quemando goma” (158).

Therefore, as García Lorca pushed dramatic boundaries in a way that none of his other contemporary Spanish playwrights accomplished, he brought the dehumanization of his art to new heights as Modernism gave way to the Avant-garde.

Recalling the previous chapter’s descriptions of the commedia dell’arte motif in

European Modernist theatre, we can now complete our understanding of this collective renovation with the impact that Spanish drama had on the movement. It was Jacinto

Benavente who initiated the movement in Spanish theatre with the subjects of his Teatro fantástico, and then internationally with Los intereses creados- much like it was Craig whose theories promoted these ideas across Europe and the Americas. The passions that first guided Benavente, such as his childhood love of puppets, also resonated with García

Lorca, whose same youthful fascination gave way to even more complex innovations. Of course the playwrights that we have examined in this chapter who populated their farces, pantomimes and puppet shows with commedic elements were not of the only to be inspired by the art form; commedia dell’arte was in the air, and novelists, poets and essayists alike were all imbued with the commedic spirit. These genres

(excluding the novel) converged on the pages of the literary magazines of the times that published and promoted the commedia dell’arte motif. Short stories, playlets, essays and

141 illustrations on this subject all appeared in Por esos mundos, an arts and travel journal with monthly circulation between 1900 and 1916 (George, 32). Among those authors featured were also Benavente, Valle-Inclán and E. Ramírez Ángel (his Drama en un bazar appears here), and interesting commedia-themed articles, such as Manuel Abril’s

“Pierrot and Colombina” on the commedia’s influence on Modernist art, are some of the highlights (George, 32). Other less well-documented (and even harder to find) journals on this theme were Arlequín and Polichinela; although Polichinela only survived one year of publication, Arlequin returned after its initial release in 1912, appearing in 1919 and 1920

(George, 34). Given that the impact of commedia dell’arte theatre was diminishing in

Spain by the 1930s, there was no longer room for this type of art-for-art’s sake theatre as of 1936, when Spain found itself torn apart by civil war. Nonetheless, not too many decades passed before Spanish playwrights under Franco’s regime were keen to challenge the heavily-censored restrictions imposed on their dramas. As Fisher states,

“Tábano and El Búho, Los Goliardos, Els Joglars, and Els Comediants presented controversial, satiric and anti-establishment performances expressed through such commedic elements as the grotesque, pantomime, masks and music” (72). Some of these groups (Els Joglars and Els Comediants) have survived well into the 21st century. It is the diversity of these paratheatrical genres (circus, pantomime, puppet shows, ballet, etc.) that effortlessly incorporate commedia elements that have kept commedia dell’arte theatre fresh and contemporary for each new generation. Therefore, in our quest to explore yet another facet of commedia renovation, we’ll turn our attention to a theme that continues to surface in the evaluation of Spanish dramas of the Modernist period:

Harlequin, the poet.

142

Chapter 4: Harlequin, Poet

“¡Poetas de España, yo, que daría todas mis obras por un solo soneto de los vuestros, os lo digo con toda la verdad de mi amor a la poesía: venid al teatro! Os necesitamos para despertar la imaginación del público, tan cerrada, tan dormida, que ya hasta la misma realidad le parece falsa si no es tan insignificante como lo es la vida, para el que sólo lleva en los ojos una lente de máquina fotográfica sin un alma dentro.”82

“The theatre needs poets!” Benavente so passionately proclaims, signaling not only poetry’s power in evoking the dream-like imagination and fantasy that diametrically opposes Realism, but also a means by which to reclaim audiences lost to theatre’s emerging competition, the cinema. Benavente himself accomplishes, with his Teatro fantástico, “un teatro en verdad poético, mucho más poético que el teatro en verso que habrían de cultivar Villaespesa, Marquina o los hermanos Machado” (Huerta Calvo, 38).

Emerging from this poetic ambiance, however, is the least likely of figures, Harlequin.

The merry buffoon with his acrobatic adeptness and compulsion for mischief, what eloquence of wit could he possibly enact? Harlequin’s transformational leap from buffoon to poet is not as novel as it initially appears in Spanish Modernist theatre. The

82 Jacinto Benavente, “El teatro de los poetas” Obras completas VI, p. 669. 143 occupation of poet was first attributed to Harlequin and Pierrot in French Symbolist poetry, with which Benavente was familiar. As he writes in an essay entitled “Los payasos del circo,” Benavente notes the influence that paratheatrical forms, such as the

Hanlon-Lees circus clowns troupe, had on the French symbolists: “si la Loie-Fuller dió sus colores al arte modernista, los Hanlon-Lees le dieron las líneas y fueron precursores.

Sin ellos no hubieran sido posibles las odas funambulescas de Banville, y sin ellas, las fiestas galantes de Verlaine.”83 Théodore de Banville (1823-1891) and

(1844-1896) appear among those French Symbolists (mentioned in the previous chapter) who dedicated verses to the commedia dell’arte characters, most famously with their

Odes funambulesques (1857) and Fêtes galantes (1869), respectively. These French

Symbolist poets, were, in turn, principally inspired by Gaspard Deburau’s rendition of

Pierrot at the Théâtre des Funambules in the early-to-mid nineteenth century, and the rising popularity of the ; thus through their creative works they produced

“...a kind of symbolic equivalence and a gradual process of mythification of Pierrot and

Harlequin, the court jester, the vagabond showman, the gypsy violinist, and the white- faced clown” (King, 239) In the following century, the mixture of these elements persists in Modernist art and literature, and as Susan Harrlow notes: “Modernism’s preference for the heterogeneous favours the conflation of popular genres and types, and so it becomes impossible to disentangle the multi-coloured strands of commedia, circus and street acrobatics”(199). In order to understand these “preferences” of Modernism, we must first examine the French Symbolist poetry that inspired the depictions of the commedia dell’arte characters, specifically Harlequin as a poet, by Spanish dramatists.

83 Jacinto Benavente, “Los payasos del circo” Pan y Letras, Obras completas VI, p. 688. 144 Théodore de Banville was the first poet to represent the symbolic union between the clown and poet; in his aforementioned Odes Funambulesques, he begins and ends the collection with his poems “La Corde raide” and “Le Saut de tremplin,” which depict the poet as an “acrobatic clown” (King, 240). As Russell King observes, “For Banville the common denominator of artist and acrobatic clown resides less in their comic mask or their function as entertainers, than in their “vertical” aspirations from reality to ideality, from the physical to the spiritual” (240). This is the idea expressed in Banville’s later poem, “Le Clown et le Poète” (1879):

Le clown ! le poète ! pour qui voit superficiellement, rien qui se ressemble moins ; pour qui sait voir, se dégager des apparences, c’est une seule même personne... Ah! les mêmes caractères, les mêmes mots, les mêmes définitions s’appliquent á l’un et à l’autre, car il y a un rythmeur dans tout acrobate, et il y a dans tout habile arrangeur de mots un acrobate, sachant accomplir des merveilles de pondération et d’équilibre. S’élancer avec agilité et avec certitude à travers l’espace au-dessus du vide, d’un point à un autre, telle est la suprême science du clown, et j’imagine que c’est aussi la seule science du poète (421-422).

Here, as both the poet and clown hurl themselves from one point to another in space their skills are one and the same. This analogy between clown and poet is also paralleled in

Baudelaire’s “Elévation” and “Le Vieux Saltimbanque,” and Mallarmé’s “chercheurs d’azure” (King, 241-243). Of course the signifier clown, and not Harlequin, is utilized in these associations. However, as the clown-poet association directly relates to the focus of our Spanish Modernist renovation of the Harlequin-poet, it is important to note, as

McManus does in his book No Kidding! Clown as Protagonist in Twentieth-Century

Theater, that “Clown images in all of the various incarnations, from circus, music hall, commedia and pantomime, were extracted from their original contexts and inserted for

145 their value as icons of modernism” (24). Moreover he attests that “the most persistent images” of clown are those of “Pierrot and Harlequin” (18). Therefore the evocations of clown, Harlequin and Pierrot were indistinguishable, and McManus concludes that

“there is a direct connection between the clowns of commedia dell’arte84 and the birth of

Modernism in the theatre” (18).

There was not, however, a shortage of poems dedicated specifically to Harlequin, and in Banville’s 1869 poem, “Arlequin,” he idealizes the figure of Harlequin through the enchanting and poetic landscapes in which Watteau had painted him, attributing

Harlequin’s transformation to the painter:

Arlequin, ce rêve d'agilité, de tendresse et de folie que Watteau penchait au bord de ses fontaines aux urnes murmurantes, dans ses grands parcs silencieux dont les vastes et clairs ombrages ensoleillés frissonnent comme des chevelures ! Mais, ô maître, qui dans ta divine féerie mèlas les masques du théâtre aux enchantements des paysages, comprenant bien que tu avais ainsi créé le seul paradis qui soit à la portée de l'homme, le riant démon aux mille couleurs que ton génie a transfiguré...(204) Banville then credits the movement towards rhyme-only discourse about Harlequin to

Théophile Gautier, whose verses influenced writers after that point to refrain from sending Harlequin’s wild antics to the “labor camp of prose”:

C'est pourquoi le grand poète Théophile Gautier le jugea digne de parler en vers éblouissants comme son habit de saphir, de topaze et d'écarlate, et pailletés de rimes d'or; et maintenant nul rimeur n'oserait renvoyer au bagne de la prose, l'étincelant de la comédie souriant de sa bouche noire sur laquelle les folles rimes romantiques voltigent harmonieusement comme un tourbillon d'abeilles...(205)

84 McManus also notes that the “Italian improvised comedy, commedia dell’arte, was the only form of theatre in history to be dominated by clowns throughout its existence” (18). 146

The subject of poetic verse (and prose) is where Harlequin finds himself in

Modernist Spanish theatre. Jacinto Benavente, in his “Cuento de primavera” (1892), embodies in his ARLEQUÍN this Banvillian figure of Harlequin-jester-clown-poet. He then continues in Los intereses creados (1907) and La cuidad alegre y confiada (1916) to depict Harlequin as a poet. This attribute of Harlequin is also present in Gregorio

Martínez Sierra’s Hechizo de amor (1908) and Ramón del Valle-Inclán’s La Marquesa

Rosalinda (1912). To what degree these authors were inspired by the French Symbolists is undocumented, however they have left behind some mention of their familiarity with these Symbolists, not to mention the telling parallels in their works, as is the case with

Paul Verlaine. Benavente, Martínez Sierra and Valle-Inclán situate their commedia characters in landscapes “de ensueño” similar to what Verlaine had done in his Fêtes galantes. This collection of Verlaine’s poems describes, as Rafael Ferreres notes,

“paisajes de jardines, fuentes para el ensueño, también los personajes de marquesas, abates y delicados caballeros y los de comedia del arte italiano, alegres y melancólicos,” and it was received “por los modernistas españoles como preferido” (94). Benavente was familiar with Fêtes galantes, as previously cited, and he makes another reference to the book while recalling a phrase from one of its poems, “Les coquillages,” in his Memorias:

El pensamiento y la orquídea (en otro orden de ideas) son... – lo diré en francés, porque no encuentro en castellano palabra tan expresiva—son flores troublantes; troublantes, como la caracola de rosa nácar, cuya contemplación, al mirarla entre otras, dio que pensar a Verlaine, y le inspiró a decir: Mais une entre autre me trouble85

85 Jacinto Benavente, Obras Completas XI, p. 652. As Rafael Ferreres observes in his book Verlaine y los modernistas españoles, this line taken from Verlaine’s poem, “Y cierto que echaba mano a la memoria, ya que lo que escribió Verlaine fue: “Mais un, entre autres, me troubla” (229). 147

As for Valle-Inclán, Ferreres cites the absence of a direct quote from the author indicating any inspiration proceeding from the French Symbolists; however “El amor por los atardeceres, los jardines con las inevitables y abundantes fuentes, Valle-Inclán emplea adjetivación modernista, pero creo que, intencionadamente, procura no vincularse demasiado a la ofrecida por Verlaine” (236). That said, Ferreres reminds his readers of the presence of Verlaine in Valle-Inclán’s play, Luces de Bohemia (1924), where he appears at the end of the ninth scene:

Levanta su copa, y gustando el aroma del ajenjo, suspira y evoca el cielo lejano de París. Piano y violín atacan un aire de opereta, y la parroquia del café lleva el compás con las cucharillas en los vasos. Después de beber los tres desterrados confunden sus voces hablando en francés. Recuerdan y proyectan las luces de la fiesta divina y moral. ¡París! ¡! ¡Ilusión! Y en el ritmo de las frases, desfila, con su pata coja, PAPA VERLAINE.

Regarding Banville’s influence on Valle-Inclán’s treatment of the commedia clown, the

Spanish playwright includes in the prologue of his drama, La marquesa Rosalinda (which will be analyzed in this chapter), a direct reference to Banville and his Odes funambulesques:

Enlazaré las rosas frescas con que se viste el vaudeville y las rimas funambulescas a la manera de Banville (44). As it is recognizably ARLEQUĺN who delivers these words, there is little room to doubt where Valle-Inclán’s Harlequin-poet-clown originates, and he overtly labels him in the play as a “poeta” and a “payaso italiano” (100).

148 In the case of Martínez Sierra, Rubén Darío, in his prologue to Sierra’s Teatro de ensueño entitled Melancólica sinfonía, enumerates the influnces that led them both to create these literary worlds of fantasy:

Así, señor Martínez Sierra, bien decía yo que ya debíamos habernos encontrado juntos en alguna parte, al paso de esa carreta en que van con las máscaras todo el ensueño...¿Fué...en la barca sonora de Goldoni...?...Quizá...hemos saludado al amigo Benavente, ocupado en crear sus aladas marionetas de rêve. En cuanto á Banville es un hecho que le conocimos, sobre todo por su clown, aquél que de un salto se fúe á perder en el plafón azul del cielo, no sin, supongo yo, haber roto en la voltereta el aro de papel de plata del plenilunio (11-12). Darío mentions Goldoni for his renditions of the commedia dell’arte scenari as well as

Banville’s poetic associations, both of which, as he indicates, inspired the creation of

Teatro de ensueño. Darío also conveys his mutual interest with Martínez Sierra’s to “... renovar el encanto de la farsa,”(13) and marvels over the power of the commedia masks in their ability to transcend reality and create fantastic scenes which sparked their appeal with the Symbolists:

Siempre es la influencia de las máscaras la que nos hace rememorar o prever una existencia aparte de lo que conocemos por nuestros sentidos actuales; de ahí proviene la revelación mallarmeana del arcano prestigio del ballet, ciertos aspectos de las fiestas galantes, el misterio de Gilles de Watteau, la incomparable magia gráfica del enigmático y prodigioso Aubrey Beardley. (14) With these references in mind, we can begin to observe how Benavente, Martínez Sierra and Valle-Inclán were inspired and/or familiar with nineteenth-century Symbolists’ portrayals of the commedia dell’arte characters.

With even the most cursory investigation into French Symbolist poetry it is incontestably apparent that one of the most prevalent figures in French Symbolist poetry

149 is Pierrot. This is especially the case in Jules Laforgue’s (1860-1887) poetry where his

Lord Pierrot combines aspects of both clown-performer and poet (King, 247). Given

Deburau’s profound influence on the Symbolists with his mime-Pierrot, it is not surprising then that Pierrot takes center stage to Harlequin. The plethora of mid-century

French Pierrots, however, naturally met with a period of decline at the turn-of-the- century, and as Robert Storey documents in his Pierrots on the Stage of Desire, “Pierrot poète, Pierrot artiste, expressing the passions of a generous soul, was an embarrassment for the twentieth century” (313). The poet, Max Jacob, in a letter to Jacques Maritain in

1936 also took notice of the shift in popularity of the commedic figures where the ‘art

Pierrot’ of the previous generation (19th century French Symbolism) was replaced by an

‘art Harlequin’ in the 20th century (Harrow, 11). Jacob’s observation is interpreted by

Susan Harrow:

With scientific progress and material innovation leading to heightened human expectations towards the end of the nineteenth century, there occurs a significant displacement within the artistic sensibility. Lingering Romantic ennui gives way to a new spirit in the arts and to approaches which stress creativity over expressivity, objectivity over subjectivity. Consistent with this is a new emphasis on the work of art as a self-referential object. And so the artist turns from an art of lyrical expression to an art of objective construction. For Jacob, the ousting of the pitiful Pierrot by the agile Harlequin metaphorizes the shift from the subjective art of the late nineteenth century to a formalist-inclined art of creation whereby a detached, critical imagination now prevails over the more purely lyrical sensibility of Romantico-Symbolism (212).

Thus this glance at the 19th-century creative contributions to Modernist literary trends satisfies the question of how we can begin to explain why Harlequin-poet makes his debut on the Spanish stage in those plays by Benavente, Martínez Sierra and Valle- 150 Inclán. Nevertheless, these authors all portray their Harlequin-poets in a singular light; moreover, Benavente’s Harlequin-poet is markedly distinct in each of the three plays in which he appears. Therefore this discussion begs a further analysis of the role of

Harlequin-poet in these Spanish plays in order to determine if he is a vestige of the past century or at the vanguard of the present.

4 A) Jacinto Benavente

We begin the analysis of Harlequin-poet in Modernist Spanish drama with

Benavente’s “Cuento de primavera,” from his Teatro fantástico (1892). In the tradition of

Spanish Golden Age loas, Benavente introduces the general themes of the play and reflections on life in a dramatic prologue spoken by the character GANIMEDES (Huerta

Calvo, 132). As the porte-parole of Benavente, GANIMEDES describes the play about to enfold as an “...ensueño juvenil, sin fijeza, ni orden, tumulto de imaginaciones sin más realidad que la de un sueño” (134). Fantasy is the dominant aesthetic in “Cuento de primavera,” a theme that is pervasive in Modernist theatre. The descriptions evoke a fairy-tale86 atmosphere as the scenes are set in an imagined land in the court of princess

LESBIA and her father, EL REY. Here Harlequin, or ARLEQUĺN, is the court jester, and his gaiety is second to his sorrows and frustrations. Although ARLEQUĺN follows the traditional Arlecchino in his amorous pursuit of COLOMBINA, this ARLEQUĺN diminishes any notion of love for her when, caught by GANIMEDES climbing out of her window in the early morning, he describes COLOMBINA as “la camarista de palacio más fácil de amor” (138). ARLEQUĺN thus urges GANIMEDES, “Dejemos los versos

86 Accentuating the world of fairy-tale that is evoked here, is the use of meta-literature. In Act 1 Scene XIV, princess LESBIA recalls a fairy-tale of her youth called “Cuento de primavera.” Given that it too tells the story of a princess who is to marry without love, LESBIA looks to the story for a resolution to her similar dilemma. Thus this fairy-tale within a fairy-tale intensifies the environment of fantasy. 151 para más tarde, que tú, por tener amor sin objeto, y yo, que tengo objeto sin amor...”(140). Although ARLEQUĺN appears flippant in his attitude toward love from the onset, it becomes apparent by the end of the play that poetic love is his life’s desire.

ARLEQUĺN reveals his character as the plot unfolds through his actions, his own words and those of others.

Descriptive by means of his actions only, is a pantomime that is interpolated into the spoken dialogue of Act 1 in scenes VII and VIII. This dumb-show also signals the influence of French literary culture on Benavente, as pantomimes were abundant on the

French stage at the later-half of the nineteenth century. Before it begins, the subject of the pantomime is revealed in a conversation between ARLEQUĺN and EL REY:

ARLEQUĺN. —Señor, ¿cuánto me dais si os alivio de ella? EL REY.—Deja las bufonadas. ARLEQUĺN. —Fui comediante mucho tiempo y sé transformarme en mil personas.87 Ved si no son estos vuestros ademanes y expresión cuando parecéis en la Corte. EL REY.—¿Yo esa figura ridícula? (...) Me haces pensar en cosas muy hondas, Arlequín. Pues bien; toma el mando, el cetro, la corona, disfrázate lo mejor que puedas y sé rey esta tarde; así, a la noche te hallarás más contento de tu estado y podré yo respirar el aire puro en los jardines... (149).

Left to enjoy his fragrant gardens, EL REY allows ARLEQUĺN to replace him in court where he is to address and interact with the general public. Presumptuous and bold in believing that he can impersonate the king, ARLEQUĺN begins the pantomime by having some fun with COLOMBINA. Taking her by the arm ARLEQUĺN begins to caress her affectionately, to COLOMBINA’s obvious shock in taking him for the king. However,

87 Insinuating the transformational nature of his character’s mask, not only in this play but throughout history. 152 she soon welcomes these attentions and begins to stroke ARLEQUĺN’s beard.

ARLEQUĺN is angered that COLOMBINA is so free with her affections, and scolds her while revealing his true self. She quickly apologizes as best she can and then inquires after the meaning of the charade. After ARLEQUĺN explains and makes leave,

COLOMBINA decides to avenge herself of this mockery and plans her own little trick.

As ARLEQUĺN is receiving the subjects of the court, a mysterious man approaches him with a letter that warns him of a plot to assassinate the king. Visibly agitated,

ARLEQUĺN tries to maintain composure until his eyes rest on a man fingering an exposed dagger. A signal is then made and many men approach the throne, but

ARLEQUĺN is long gone, his elaborate costume resting where he once sat. The palace guards and servants explode into laughter and ARLEQUĺN quickly realizes that he, the prankster, has been pranked.88 Recalling of the Austrian, Lothar’s King Harlequin,

ARLEQUĺN also believes himself capable of fulfilling the role of king, only to abandon it at the first sign of danger. He thus exposes his shortcomings in full view of his peers, although he tries to conceal them with his cheeky effrontery. Overtly shameless,

ARLEQUĺN shows no reserve in his dealings with EL REY and the princess, LESBIA.

He is the cynical buffoon who prizes biting wit over sycophantic quips, to which

LESBIA complains in the third scene, “Siempre han de ser crueles tus burlas” (143). On the one hand this cynical, arrogant ARLEQUĺN displays a jocular regard to love and life:

“Y yo haré de todo un poema burlesco y me burlaré en él de todo..., hasta del poema”

(147). However, on the other hand he has noble which LESBIA and

COLOMBINA expose.

88 In some ways this parallels aspects of Lothar’s Harlequin King (1900) (analyzed in chapter two), in which the overconfident Harlequin impersonating the slain king makes passes at Colombina to test her loyalty and then abandons his throne at the slightest sign of danger. 153 LESBIA first reveals this duality in ARLEQUĺN in Act I Scene III when as a rebuttal to another one of his criticisms she says “Y tú, bufón desvergonzado, que eres bueno en el fondo, acalla un momento ese diablillo procaz que rebulle dentro de ti inspirándote burlas y sarcasmo...” (144). Signaling the appropriation of Arlecchino’s fellowship with the devil, LESBIA recognizes in ARLEQUĺN his outward annoyances and inward virtues. This dyad of his persona is echoed more passionately in Act I Scene

XVII from COLOMBINA, who elevates ARLEQUĺN amid a spectrum of emotion:

COLOMBINA.—(...) mi espíritu de comedianta vuelve siempre hacia ti como a su centro natural. Contigo soy reina y criada, honesta y alegre, lloro y río. Tú me comprendes siempre, ¡pobre bufón de mil colores! Noble y villano, honrado y vicioso, en tus aspectos varios y, en el centro de todos, espíritu crítico, espectador inmutable que ríes o lloras contigo, te aplaudes o te silbas a ti mismo (172).

ARLEQUĺN in the eyes of others is a farceur, noble of yet cynical; however, in his own words expressed in the epilogue, he is nothing more than a sad clown:

¡Pobre Arlequín! Si no sucumbiste en la lucha de tu dramática existencia fue porque supiste abstraer de ti un crítico de artes, espectador curioso de la comedia de tu vida. Así te vi, pobre comediante, adulador rastrero, bufón sarcástico, mofándote de nobles sentimientos, no reparando en ruindades ni bajezas para defender hora tras hora tu miserable condición de vida (198). ARLEQUĺN dismisses all of his ascribed merits and lamentably characterizes himself as a sarcastic sycophant who scoffs at honorable intentions and does little to remedy his depravities. This characterization of Harlequin-clown is, as McManus points out, indicative of this figure well into the twentieth century, and therefore places Benavente at the forefront of this posturing:

The popular perception of a clown is synonymous with laughter, but clown as adopted by twentieth-century artists, has more frequently been the means through 154 which the contemporary tragic impulse has been expressed. If a character in twentieth-century theatre looks like a clown and acts like a clown, but does not make us laugh, it is usually because our attention is being channeled in a new direction. What was once a has now been presented as an insight, question, or commentary (11).

Clearly ARLEQUĺN’s last avowal casts an insight into the innate character of a buffoon; however ARLEQUĺN draws the epilogue to a close with the means to his salvation: poetry. He describes a seed that he possesses that comes from “extraños países” that he won as the victor of “poéticos certámenes” (198):

Y tú, maravillosa semilla, vas a redirmirme. Por mí plantada, por mis cuidados floreciente, en la primavera futura será tu flor el premio del poeta cantor de los amores..., y ese poeta seré yo (199).

Thus ARLEQUĺN-poet wants to trade his Modernist “poetry” for that of a bygone era as a means to liberate himself. As we look back to French Symbolist poetry for inspirations for Modernist themes and characters, we can perhaps draw some parallels in

ARLEQUĺN-poet’s dilemma with Stéphane Mallarmé’s (1842-1898) poem “Le Pitre châtié.” In it the poet muses over the choice between one’s life and one’s art, or “between being a lover or a clown” (King, 247). As Russel King interprets Mallarmé’s poem, he ascribes this Life-Art conflict where “either man or artist must be sacrificed for the other to thrive,” to be a dominant subject in the art of Baudelaire and other Decadents:

“Mallarmé’s clown rebels against this alienation from life, and is punished, for, in rejecting the clown’s garb and endeavoring to become a man, he has destroyed himself as an artist.89 The artist’s dilemma is therefore having to choose between being a prisoner of the unsatisfactory artifice of art, and frozen artless experience” (247). Although both of

89 A similar struggle is the main theme of Martínez Sierra’s Las golondrinas. 155 these options are unfavorable, the mood at the end of “Cuento de primavera” is uplifting, and we can only assume that ARLEQUĺN will find happiness as a future poet. Thus, as this ARLEQUĺN-poet finds in the profession a future, the ARLEQUĺN-poet of Los intereses creados, finds the modern world to have no use for his antiquated craft.

Los intereses creados (1907) begins with a prologue much like “Cuento de primavera,” however this time gone is the dream world steeped in sentimentality; instead,

Benavente presents us with dehumanized characters in this “farsa guiñolesca,” where

“...sus personajes no son ni semejan hombres y mujeres, sino muñecos o fantoches de cartón y trapo, con groseros hilos, visibles a poca luz y al más corto de vista” (86).

Nonetheless, Benavente finds it necessary, as with “Cuento de primavera,” to suggest how his audience might enjoy this play, as it is “de asunto disparatado, sin realidad alguna”(86). The prologue is presented by the rogue (pícaro), CRISPĺN, who transmits

Benavente’s message: “El autor sólo pide que aniñéis cuanto sea posible vuestro espíritu”

(86). Of course Los intereses creados is no children’s play, as it deals with the self- interests of a greedy and corrupt society. To that end it is interesting to note that

Benavente’s main theme here is of a political nature, as with almost all of the Modernist commedia-inspired plays previously cited (with the exception of Lothar’s King

Harlequin), there is an absence of overt politics. Although it has been established how well the commedia masks transmit political topics, Benavente explains his use of the commedia cast as being inspired by the great dramaturgs of past centuries use of the theatrical genre, (underplaying his own play’s inclusion in this group):

Ilustró después su plebeyo origen con noble ejecutoria: Lope de Rueda, Shakespeare, Molière, como enamorados príncipes de cuento de hadas, elevaron a Cenicienta al más alto trono de la Poesía y del Arte. No presume de tan gloriosa

156 estirpe esta farsa, que por curiosidad de su espíritu inquieto os presenta un poeta de ahora (86). The inspiration of these authors was not complete enough a list for Modernist literary critics, and Benavente was met with many claims. He addresses these accusations in his artículos:

No ha faltado en torno a Los intereses creados – ¿cómo no? – el mosconeo acusador de plagio. Y tan plagio. Los intereses creados es la obra que más se parece a muchas otras de todos los tiempos y de todos los países. A las comedias latinas, a las comedias del arte italiano, a muchas obras de Molière, de Regnard, de Beaumarchais. A la que menos se parece es, justamente, a la que más dijeron que se parecía, al Volpone original de Ben Johnson.90 What Benavente reminds his critics is also echoed by González de Sande: “...en la

Commedia dell’arte, la originalidad de cada autor recaía no en los personajes y los argumentos, sino en la manera de presentarlos, en las distintas formas de plantear idénticas situaciones (73). Therefore, as Benavente himself signals in the prologue, “El mundo está ya viejo y chochea; el Arte no se resigna a envejecer,” and so in his yet another renovation of an old art form, Benavente paints a commedic situation with

“original” flair, one that was met with such regard that it subsequently inspired commedia dramas throughout Europe.

How then does Benavente present the masks amid all of the classic commedia mayhem and machinations, artifice and amour? POLICHINELA, COLOMBINA,

90 Taken from Benavente’s “Hoy hace años..,” Obras completas XI, p. 46. González de Sande also documents the parallels between Los intereses creados and ’s El caballero de Illescas: Por este motivo y aunque parezcan evidentes las interferencias de la obra e Lope en la de Benavente, no sorprende encontrar un personaje llamado Juan Tomás que finge ser un gran señor en Nápoles, enamorando a Octavia, la hija del Conde Antonio, que huye a España con su enamorado y allí, a pesar de descubrir el engaño, reafirma su amor por el amante. Y toparnos de nuevo, varios siglos después, con el protagonista de Los intereses creados, un pícaro que oculta su condición bajo la apariencia de un caballero poderoso, consiguiendo enamorar a la hija de un rico comerciante que, después de conocer la verdad, no cambia el amor que siente por el joven embustero (72).

157 DOCTOR, PANTALÓN, CAPITÁN, and LEANDRO (lover, but here with added protagonism), are very much faithful to their traditional roles. ARLEQUÍN, however, stands out again as being a poet, but even more pronounced is his surprisingly secondary role to the action. This role supports a major theme in the play, the hostility between past

(ie: an antiquated way of life) and present (ie: the motivations of modern times). There is no longer any use for poets in this Renaissance era in which the play is set, and the

CAPITÁN also finds his talents unappreciated in this mercenary society:

CAPITÁN. —¿Mi espada? Mi espada de soldado, como vuestro plectro de poeta, nada valen en esta ciudad de mercaderes y de negociantes....¡Triste condición es la nuestra! ARLEQUĺN.—Bien decís. No la sublime poesía, que sólo canta de nobles y elevados asuntos; ya ni sirve para poner el ingenio a las plantas de los poderosos para elogiarlos o satirizarlos; alabanzas o diatribas no tiene valor para ellos; ni agradecen las unas ni temen las otras. El propio Aretino hubiera muerto de hambre en estos tiempos (93). ARLEQUĺN thus tries to meet the needs of daily survival by attempting in vain to insist, in this case, that an innkeeper grant them food in exchange for their talents:

ARLEQUĺN. —¿Contáis por nada las ponderaciones que de vuestra casa hicimos en todas partes? ¡Hasta un soneto os tengo dedicado y en él celebro vuestras perdices estofadas y vuestros pasteles de liebre!...Y en cuanto al señor Capitán, tened por seguro que él solo sostendrá contra un ejército el buen nombre de esta casa. ¿Nada vale esto? ¡Todo ha de ser moneda contante en el mundo! (95).

ARLEQUĺN’s shock at the workings of contemporary society is not a cunning act in order to garner sympathy and benefit from a free meal. He genuinely believes that his poetry of praise merits nourishment, and therefore he plays a naïve and often ridiculous character, much like the blustering Captain. The only person who sees any merit in these

158 two masks is CRISPĺN, who as George points out, “...acts as a bridge between the old and new (61). By including CRISPĺN among these masks, Benavente both renovates the commedia and creates an entirely new figure, much like Copeau later tried so desperately to initiate with his Copiaus.

CRISPĺN is a very astute servant, capable of complex manipulations. He is adept in turning misfortune into contentment, as he understands those “intereses creados” or

“bonds of interest,” that motivate this “puppet” society. His shrewdness is apparent from the onset:

CRISPĺN.—Dos ciudades hay. ¡Quiera el Cielo que en la mejor hayamos dado! LEANDRO. —¿Dos ciudades dices, Crispín? Ya entiendo: antigua y nueva, una de cada parte del río. CRISPĺN. —¿Que importa el río ni la vejez ni la novedad? Digo dos ciudades como en toda ciudad del mundo: una para el que llega con dinero, y otra para el que llega como nosotros (87).

Playing the part, much like Harlequin, of a rogue, CRISPĺN even hails from the “reino de

Picardía” which serves to exaggerate this characteristic (87). As luck would have it,

CRISPĺN quickly finds comfort in this new city by means of his chicanery; he also begins to secure a prosperous future for both himself and his master, by pairing LEANDRO with the daughter of the richest man in town, POLICHINELA. Arranging for their first encounter takes him to the gardens of DOÑA SIRENA, where he overhears her conversation with her servant, COLOMBINA, about the lack of funding for their grand party planned for that evening. As DOÑA SIRENA criticizes COLOMBINA’s relationship with ARLEQUĺN, a man who can only give her “versos y músicas,”

COLOMBINA assures her that he will be able to save the party, as “...el señor Arlequín,

159 que por algo es poeta y para algo está enamorado de mí, sabrá improvisarlo todo. Él conoce a muchos truhanes de buen humor que han de prestarse a todo” (103).

COLOMBINA’s assurances are not very convincing, having already been presented with

ARLEQUĺN’s helplessness; therefore it comes as no surprise that CRISPĺN steps in to save the party. He paints a picture for DOÑA SIRENA of life as if it were a large fête galante (in a nod to Verlaine) (George, 63).

CRISPĺN.—Vos sois siempre la noble dama, mi amo el noble señor, que al encontrarnos esta noche en la fiesta, hablaréis de mil cosas galantes y delicadas, mientras vuestros convidados pasean y conversan a vuestro alrededor, con admiraciones a la hermosura de las damas, al arte de sus galas, a la esplendidez del agasajo, a la dulzura de la música y a la gracia de los bailarines...¿Y quién se atreverá a decir que no es esto todo? ¿No es así la vida, una fiesta en que la música sirve para disimular palabras y las palabras para disimular pensamientos? Que la música suene incesante, que la conversación se anime con alegres risas, que la cena esté bien servida..., es todo lo que importa a los convidados (108).

CRISPĺN leaves nothing to chance in his planning, as he is the one ultimately pulling on everyone’s puppet strings. Benavente also weaves into this scene a mention of

ARLEQUĺN to make the reader form a parallel in their mind between ARLEQUĺN and

CRISPĺN. First when COLOMBINA asks CRISPĺN “Y vos, ¿sois también poeta, no sólo cortesano y lisonjero? (104) and then later when SIRENA asks COLOMBINA who she was conversing with: “¿Luego no fue Arlequín?” (107). CRISPĺN has no trepidations as he boldly confronts the violent POLICHINELA in Act II, Scene VII:

CRISPĺN.—Soy...lo que fuiste. Y quien llegará a ser los que eres..., como tú llegaste. No con tanta violencia como tú, porque los tiempos son otros y ya sólo asesinan los locos y los enamorados, y cuatro pobretes que aún asaltan a mano armada al transeúnte por calles oscuras o caminos solitarios (114).

160

Thus with a few words he is able to disarm the most powerful man in the city, insinuating that LEANDRO’s bond with POLICHINELA’s daughter is out of his control:

POLICHINELA.—¿Tu amo? Será entonces un aventurero, un hombre de fortuna, un bandido como... CRISPĺN.—¿Como nosotros..., vas a decir? No; es más peligroso que nosotros, porque, como ves, su figura es bella, y hay en su mirada un misterio de encanto...Corre y separa a tu hija de ese hombre, y no le permitas que baile con él ni que vuelva a escucharle en su vida. POLICHINELA.—¿Y dices que es tu amo y así le sirves? CRISPĺN.—¿Lo extrañas? ¿Te olvidas ya de cuando fuiste criado? (114-115)

Therefore when POLICHINELA’s daughter, SILVIA, runs to LEANDRO against her father’s wishes, PANTALÓN comes to collect his money, the DOCTOR arrives with the legal grievances of those of other cities who have been wronged by CRISPĺN and

LEANDRO, and ARLEQUĺN laments dedicating odes to the duplicitous LEANDRO

(thus making him look even more ridiculous on a par with these other claims), CRISPĺN calmly faces the mob. True to Harlequin’s traditional “scheming servant” who sets things right in the end,91 and also his new abilities (Recalling Gual’s Arlequí vividor and La serenata) where he quiets the chaos through his cunning (while acting ultimately in his own self-interest), CRISPĺN is both a rendering and a departure from Harlequin.

The action resolves itself on a happy note, as LEANDRO and SILVIA’s love, “les hace parecer divinos...y es , y no puede acabar cuando la farsa acaba.” (149).

However, as George points out, “Benavente believed that, once having expressed his true

91 In Act II, Scene III, Sub-scene IV, CRISPĺN tells LEANDRO that while working in the galleys of a ship, “...me acusó más de torpe que de pícaro” (129). This ambiguity between Harlequin being a knave or fool is a traditional rendering of the character. Carlo Goldoni, the 18th century Italian playwright who committed to paper many commedia plays, including his Servant of Two Masters, in which Harlequin’s actions causes everyone to wonder, “What are we to make of this fellow? Is he knave or fool?” (85). 161 feelings and beliefs in the rest of the play, an author should aim to please the public in the conclusion”(64). This can only be true, as the overall tone of the play is pessimistic.

Dougherty and Anderson characterize the social politics behind this pessimism as “...a scathing denunciation of bourgeois materialism and self-satisfaction,” at a time when

“Wit was prized over , irony flourished, and innuendo (political and sexual) became a fine art” (292). Benavente’s wit was indeed relished not only in Spain but also abroad, as Los intereses creados celebrated many curtain calls in the theatres of his international contemporaries.

The sequel to Los intereses creados, La cuidad alegre y confiada (1916), did not meet with as much critical praise as the former, partially given that it highlighted

Benavente’s controversial politics during WWI. Benavente did not support the Allies, as did the majority of intellectuals in Spain, and so in an allegory to contemporary society he depicts Spain as a city where the general populous is suffering due to the selfish exploits of the . His prologue takes a dramatic turn from those of “Cuento de primavera” and Los intereses creados; where as before Benavente tried to help his public incorporate themselves in the ambiance of the play, his interlocutor, EL DESTERRADO, makes no attempt to engage them. His purpose is to justify the somber mood he presents:

Todo el mundo es teatro de tragedia, y si el Arte mismo no puede ser hoy serenidad, si no quiere parecer inhumano, ¿cómo puede ser bufonada sin parecernos un insulto al dolor y a la muerte? (121-122). EL DESTERRADO disassociates himself from this world of “la farándula” by speaking about himself in the third person:

Entre los muñecos y fantoches de cartón y trapo, ya conocidos vuestros, veréis ahora algún hombre que hablará como hombre, para espanto de los muñecos... El

162 hombre verdadero os parecerá, en cambio, con rigidez inflexible, sin coyunturas, porque alienta en él un noble espíritu y es todo frente y todo corazón (121). It is believed that Benavente models his DESTERRADO, or exile, on Antonio Maura, an exiled Spanish politician whom Benavente clearly admired (George, 1981:105). The play opens with the return of EL DESTERRADO to this city, which has witnessed many changes since the time depicted in Los intereses creados. POLICHINELA and

PANTALÓN are even more obsessed with their fortunes, and all look to CRISPĺN,92 EL

MAGNĺFICO, as the leader (and wealthiest citizen) of the city. LEANDRO has fallen out of love with SILVIA, although the new generation of children, EL DESTERRADO’s son and CRISPĺN’s daughter, hold on tightly to this ideal. Amid the famine and misery that surrounds them the “antigua farsa” reunites for another “fête galante” but this time organized by the Poet Laureate, ARLEQUĺN, to honor the dancer, GIRASOL.

POLICHINELA barely makes it to the party due to the poor condition of the roads, a cause of his own negligence; amid the gaiety of the party protests can be heard from outside and he scoffs, “Ése es el pueblo. Ya tenía yo noticias de lo que esta noche se preparaba. El pueblo tiene hambre y se indigna contra nosotros porque estamos de fiesta”

(161). Joining in the general apathy of his fellow commedia cast, is ARLEQUĺN. As the

Venetians desire to make claim on the city and the threat of war looms, ARLEQUĺN is devoid of any patriotic sentiment:

¿Para qué queremos soldados? ¿Qué tenemos que defender? ¿Qué importa que todo se pierda? Una ciudad que sólo encumbra a los que no tienen ningún talento. Aquí son reputados famosos cuatro hombres vulgares, que ni siquiera son

92 In Act III Scene VIII there is another nod to this connection as displayed in Los intereses creados between CRISPĺN and ARLEQUĺN, when ARLEQUĺN says, “El Magnífico tiene alma de poeta, como todos los pícaros.” (217).

163 conocidos en Venecia ni en Génova(...) Lo único que podemos presentar al mundo son nuestras bailarinas, nuestros desbravadores de potros y nuestros mendigos...Eso sí...Es nuestro orgullo...Por eso he querido yo que nos juntáramos en esta fiesta los únicos que aún no hemos perdido la clara visión de las cosas (134).

This ARLEQUĺN of La cuidad is similar to that of Los intereses, in that they both have antiquated roles and ideas. As George points out, ARLEQUĺN’s attitude is characteristic of the older Spanish generation, and therefore he is associated with general decadence

(1981:106). In leading his city through this crisis, CRISPĺN has no use for ARLEQUĺN’s detachment: “Cuento con sus soldados y cuento con su juventud que no toda es como el señor Arlequín y sus desmedrados poetas...” (189). But ARLEQUĺN is so severe on his own culture that he pontificates: “La Humanidad, más que en pueblos, se divide en castas. Yo me sentiré siempre más compatriota de un poeta turco que de uno de nuestros soldadotes, que por su parte en nada se diferencia de un soldadote veneciano” (207). He has become cynical, pompous and duplicitous, and even COLOMBINA is fed-up with his insincerity. For instance when GIRASOL finishes performing, ARLEQUĺN comments on her performance:

ARLEQUĺN. —Eres el momento y la eternidad, lo fugitivo y lo inmutable: mármol y nube. El rizo de la espuma en la ola sucesiva y la inmensidad del mar, que se quita al confundirse con el cielo. COLOMBINA.--¡Cuánta cosa en un baile! ¡El diablo son estos poetas! (174).

The traditional Colombina was always in love with Harlequin despite his foolishness, so the fact that COLOMBINA relinquishes her feelings for him signifies a clear degeneration of ARLEQUĺN. She reveals these feelings to LEANDRO during

ARLEQUĺN’s party: 164 COLOMBINA.—(A Leandro.) ¿Visteis fiesta más triste y aburrida? Como dispuesta por Arlequín y sus amigos. Los poetas imaginan muy lindamente, pero realizan muy mal sus imaginaciones. LEANDRO.—Tú debes sablerlo, graciosa Colombina, ya que siempre fuiste amada de algún poeta. ¿Tan desengañada estás de sus realidades? COLOMBINA.—Los detesto...vos no sois poeta y no decís tonterías como ellos. No saben que a las mujeres nos aburren los hombres que dicen tonterías.

The decline of these farsantes in the evolution of Benavente’s use of them is paralleled by the fall of the city itself, and the play ends with LEANDRO being killed in battle and

CRISPĺN transferring power to the Venetians.

In being the subject of three of Benavente’s plays in three different decades, we are able to observe how the changing political environment shaped his portrayal of the commedia dell’arte, and specifically, Harlequin. ARLEQUĺN-poet in “Cuento de amor” is sarcastic and cynical, comic and sentimental. He is a melancholy clown-poet who looks to love as a remedy for his wistfulness. His world is that of fantasy, or ensueño, characteristic of Modernism and the product of French Symbolist influences. Skipping from the 1890s to the 1900s, Los intereses creados populates its cast with more commedia masks and employs them to convey a light socio-political criticism.

ARLEQUĺN-poet is anachronistic in his modern setting, and the new century begs innovation in the character leading to a hybrid, CRISPĺN. This doesn’t mean that

ARLEQUĺN-poet is obsolete; he instead has become the subject of comedy (as a cause of his entitlement and innocence) rather than the originator of it. Of course at the heart of

ARLEQUĺN-poet’s predicament are the sentiments that were discussed in the poetry of

Baudelaire. As the modern market demanded that the poet move to the city and compete for the excess cash of the rising bourgeoisie, the poet’s status was increasingly 165 diminished as the materialism of art became dominant over the once elevated value of the humanities. That said, if ARLEQUĺN-poet’s profession is now antiquated in Los intereses creados, his ideas about war and patriotism are presented as resentfully outmoded in La ciudad alegre y confiada. Being that this play was completed and first staged mid-WWI, it clearly reflects the tragic air of the times more so than any artistic motif. Nevertheless Benavente artfully portrays the commedia throughout the changing times, thus accentuating its adaptability, both for comic and critical ends. Perhaps these dehumanized “puppets” are Benavente’s own means for salvation as he looks back to the nineteenth-century for the inspiration to help him cope with the present one:

No somos todavía tan desgraciados los que podemos soñar, al recordarlos, con aquellos tiempos de mundo ilusionado que había de tener tan triste despertar apenas empezado el siglo XX.93

4 B) Gregorio Martínez Sierra

Martínez Sierra, heavily influenced by Benavente’s dramas, published his first dramatic work, Teatro de ensueño in 1905, but his plays were considered too experimental and “Modernist” to be performed (O’Conner, 80). Nevertheless, this did not prevent him from exploring Modernist themes including commedia dell’arte plays. In

1907 he published Aldea ilusoria, and in 1908 Hechizo de amor. The former is comprised of poetry, playlets, short stories set in exotic lands and the like, and in the commedia scenarios does not portray Harlequin as a poet. However, Pierrot is portrayed as a poet, thus signaling a strong connection with French Symbolist poetry that favored

Pierrot in this métier. This is also the case in Hechizo de amor, although this play is not a

93 Jacinto Benavente, “Carnaval,” Obras Completas, Volume XI, p.102. 166 collection of literary works, rather a single play, and both PIERROT and ARLEQUĺN are poets.

In commedic tradition, the play begins with a prologue given by a “fantoche” who claims to be the “PRÓLOGO” thus creating another level of fantasy (249). Much like

Benavente, Martínez Sierra uses the prologue to engage his audience in the spirit of the play, which he says, “Inevitablemente se trata de amor” (249). Interrupting the

PRÓLOGO is UNA MUCHACHA who questions the capacity of these dehumanized subjects:

UNA MUCHACHA. —¿Y cómo, señor Prólogo, no teniendo corazón, podéis los fantoches amar? El PRÓLOGO. —Yo no he dicho que amemos, linda señorita. UNA MUCHACHA. —Nos habéis dicho, señor Prólogo, que vuestra comedia trata de amor. El PRÓLOGO. —Trata de amor; pero, precisamente, es comedia (250).

Unlike Benavente’s “fantoches” who mirror a social reality, these Martínez Sierra’s

“puppets” serve only to entertain.

In the tradition of “Cuento de primavera,” Hechizo de amor takes place in a garden during the springtime. We learn that COLOMBINA is wed to PIERROT, and in his typical Symbolist guise he is so absorbed in his poetic musings that he ignores his wife completely. She laments her situation and complains about her husband to the wizard, POLICHINELA:

¡Ah, señor Pierrot, grandísimo infeliz! Sabed que no sois vos el único poeta del mundo, y que hay muchos que componen versos tan ideales como los vuestros, y mejor dirigidos...suenan los acordes de una citara ¡No lo dije! Ya tenemos aquí al bueno de Arlequín (256).

167

This ARLEQUĺN is a love-poet of sorts who fancies COLOMBINA, and tries relentlessly to woo her with coplas that he has dedicated to her. In the meantime

COLOMBINA is intent on using POLICHINELA’s magic to renew her husband’s affections, but it all leads to comic ends. Only her maidservant and confidant,

PIERRETTE, finds a simple solution to her mistresses’ plight: jealousy. PIERRETTE sets about singing ARLEQUĺN’s praises until she finally catches her master,

PIERROT’s, attention and directs it towards ARLEQUĺN’s seduction of COLOMBINA.

PIERROT’s jealousy renews his affection for his wife, and the defeated ARLEQUĺN sheepishly turns to PIERRETTE:

ARLEQUĺN. — (Decidiéndose repentinamente). ¿Queréis amarme, Pierrette? PIERRETTE. —¡Ja ja, ja! No me gusta vencer con armas de despecho. ARLEQUĺN. —¡No seais cruel! PIERRETTE. —Mi señora es mucho más hermosa que yo. ARLEQUĺN. —¡Ilusión! La belleza femenina es un todo, un cuerpo perfecto, en que cada mujer hermosa es miembro distinto: tu señora es hermosa, tú eres hermosa como ella; miembros distintos de la misma belleza. PIERRETTE. —¿Y hacia dónde vengo yo á caer en ese cuerpo universal que decís? ARLEQUĺN. —Por lo que el mío dice, debéis estar muy cerca del corazón. Se abrazan. (273).

ARLEQUĺN’s powers of seduction are swift, even with the worldly PIERRETTE, and the play closes on a sentimental note with both couples dancing to “una música suave”

(273). ARLEQUĺN’s character is very simply constructed in comparison with

Benavente’s renderings; moreover ARLEQUĺN’s coupling with PIERRETTE plays second fiddle to PIERROT and COLOMBINA’s relationship, therefore demoting him to

168 a secondary character. On another level it’s interesting, going back to Jacob’s observation of the surpassing of ‘art Pierrot’ by ‘art Harlequin’ in the early 20th century, that this is not reflected in Martínez Sierra’s play. Needless to say, Martínez Sierra constructs an amusing, albeit simple play, where the themes of love, fantasy and sentimentality closely align it with “Cuento de primavera.” Adopting the Renaissance setting of “Cuento de primavera” and Hechizo de amor, Valle-Inclán also situates the commedia dell’arte characters in this bygone era for his Modernist play, La marquesa Rosalinda

4 C) Ramón del Valle-Inclán

Akin to Martínez Sierra, Valle-Inclán also demonstrates the influence that

Benavente had on his work, indicated in the titles of both his Tragedia de ensueño and

Comedia de ensueño, written between 1903 and 1905. Also reminiscent of Benavente is the poetic quality of Valle-Inclán’s commedia play, La marquesa Rosalinda (1911). The entire play is scripted in verse, including the stage directions. For instance, these stage directions, or acotaciones, include wonderful sensory imagery describing the setting of the play in the palatial gardens of Aranjuez sometime during the 18th century:

Nota de silencio. El pavo real abre su abanico al sol vesperal. Al pie del sendero deshoja el rosal sus últimas rosas, y es un madrigal de púrpura y oro la tarde otoñal. Salen dos madamas. Risas de cristal quiebran el silencio del Jardín Real (61).

As César Oliva notes in reference to this passage, “La acotación construye aquí un bucólico cuadro, pleno de elementos modernistas: el atardecer, el sendero, el rosal, el otoño. Valle atiende especialmente a los efectos de luz, color y sonido (61). Arriving at 169 these gardens is “el carro de la farsa,” carrying ARLEQUĺN, COLOMBINA, PIERROT and POLICHINELA. Making the introductions, ARLEQUĺN presents himself to EL

MARQUÉS: “Vi la luz en Italia, fui poeta, me engañó mi mujer y vine a España de comediante” (53). Thus he identifies himself with the profession of poet linking him with this Spanish Modernist trend, while still respecting Arlecchino’s past: Soy de Bérgamo, viví en Venecia, pero años hace vuelo a placer. París me ha dado lo que más precia:

Deudas, , y una mujer (77). What is interesting here is that Valle-Inclán makes reference to the many novelties bestowed on Harlequin in his appropriations over time in

France. Playing the lover and seducer, ARLEQUĺN finds himself attracted to the wife of

EL MARQUÉS, ROSALINDA. Trapped in a loveless marriage with a much older husband, ROSALINDA has had her fair share of affairs. Therefore she does nothing to disavow ARLEQUĺN’s advances. All the same, ARLEQUĺN’s seduction of

ROSALINDA is first hindered by his previous affair with COLOMBINA, PIERROT’s wife, whose feelings for ARLEQUĺN persist:

COLOMBINA. —¿Por qué me engañas? ¿Cómo quieres que no me esconda, Arlequín, cuando sé tus mañas? ¡Señor!...¡Señor!...¡Que haya burlado con tanto arte, a Pierrot por este malvado! ARLEQUĺN.—Eso se dice en un aparte (82).

ARLEQUĺN’s ability to make fun of COLOMBINA’s jealousy indicates his clear disregard for her feelings. COLOMBINA, although blinded by her love for ARLEQUĺN, knows also that his attitude is detrimental to her well-being: “Tanto cinismo me asesina!”

(85). Therefore ARLEQUĺN’s cynicism mimics this trait observed in the three

ARLEQUĺN-poets of Benavente. As Martínez Sierra also, like Valle-Inclán depicts

COLOMBINA as the wife of PIERROT, the similarities in plot cease with this detail, as

170 this matrimony in La marquesa Rosalinda, is easily unraveled by ARLEQUĺN’s expert seduction. What is also unique to La marquesa Rosalinda, is the portrayal of PIERROT.

Although not a poet, PIERROT conserves his French Symbolist association, as he can be seen staring dreamily at the moon (in this regard ARLEQUĺN also joins him in passionately praising the wondrous moon). However as Pierrot is almost always impotent in the face of Colombina’s cucklolding (we’ll recall the Russian Symbolists, Block and

Evreinov’s portrayals of him) this PIERROT seeks retribution from Harlequin both in monetary compensation and in recuperating his honor. PIERROT is very clever here too, as he startles ARLEQUĺN and COLOMBINA insinuating that they have been found out:

Sale Pierrot haciendo zumba. En su rostro carnavalesco Hay un mueca de ultratumba. PIERROT.—¡Arlequín! ¡Arlequín!...¡La desgracia entró en nuestra casa! (86).

However PIERROT’s message is only to inform them that their troupe’s horse is ill and must be cared for. Once the danger of a confrontation seems to have lifted COLOMBINA leaves and PIERROT asks ARLEQUĺN for money, which he’s denied; this rejection of monetary compensation leads to PIERROT challenging ARLEQUĺN to a future duel:

“Pues tendremos un desafío por mi mujer” (86). ARLEQUĺN is startled by PIERROT’s words, but soon forgets them. Given that this is the case, PIERROT interrupts

ARLEQUĺN’s seduction of ROSALINDA, knowing that this treachery will cripple the pair:

PIERROT.—¡Perdóname, señora, que interrumpa tu plática, y con gesto avinagrado en el jardín irrumpa, para vengar mi honor averiado. ¡Arlequín me engañó con Colombina! (173)

171 PIERROT initiates a duel between them at this point in order to recuperate his honor; however, in choosing stage-swords he ensures that no harm can be done:

PIERROT. —¿No me podrás matar? ARLEQUĺN. —Así lo espero, que espada de teatro nunca mata. PIERROT. —¡Pues no puedo matarte, ni la muerte recibir de tus manos de payaso, para filosofar sobre mi suerte, me vuelvo a la carreta, paso a paso! (177).

Although lacking the passion and sincerity of a truly jilted husband, PIERROT nonetheless maintains his dignity by defending, albeit comically, his honor.

In focusing on ARLEQUĺN and PIERROT, it is obvious that the subject of the play’s title, ROSALINDA, plays a very small role in comparison to the masks. More so,

ROSALINDA is mocked for her hypocrisy in leading a life of adultery, only to claim to lead a religious life:

ROSALINDA. —Vuestros discursos de paganía me causan pena! ARLEQUĺN. —Son un misterio los cascabeles de mi alegría, como las rosas del cementerio (171).

Even given his love for her, ARLEQUĺN does not promise to abandon his pagan beliefs.

He does not consider her spirituality an impediment to their future happiness, as his mind only finds concern with more comic worries: “Pienso en tus pobres huesos, en los tumbos del carro por los caminos ésos...”(135). In the end ARLEQUĺN and ROSALINDA do not flee together, as EL MARQUÉS sends thugs after him as well as an arrest warrant. With the help of COLOMBINA, ARLEQUĺN is able to safely avert disaster, but still the roadblocks to ROSALINDA are too great and he gives-up in search of new adventures.

Therefore ARLEQUĺN-poet, as envisioned by Valle-Inclán, combines elements of both

Benavente’s and Martínez Sierra´s ARLEQUĺN-poets: His cynical regard for the world

172 and love-lust are his major motivators, and when he does not get what he wants he moves-on without remorse.

4 D) Conclusions

Concluding the descriptive evaluation of Benavente, Martínez Sierra and Valle-

Inclán’s varied portrayals of Harlequin as a poet, we are also left with concrete examples of how both general characteristics of French Symbolism (idealized settings depicting gardens and fountains, etc.) and specific motifs (the melancholy performer, the clown with psychological depth) were the major influences in the crafting of these dramas.

These influences were important not only to the early European Modernists but the modernistas as well, thus adding to the uniformity of the movements. Albeit partially contradictory, literary tradition played a major role in the composition of Modernist works, especially poetry, as these authors found that in order to be original they had to shed a light on past poetic traditions. Therefore, as the French Symbolist tradition produced this initial representation of Harlequin as a poet, we are left to ponder what these Spanish dramatists of the Modernist movement were trying to express in carrying this métier into their dramas? What did it mean to be a Modernist poet and do their

Harlequin-poets transmit these ideas?

Scholars of Modernism agree that poetry was the dominant genre of the literary movement. The position of the poet was, as we’ll recall Graham Hough’s words, “de- classed and dis-established” as the aristocratic, humanistic order gave way to that of the middle-class, materialistic and urban. The Irish Modernist poet, Yeats, lamented over how the arts could overcome “the slow dying of men’s hearts that we call the progress of the world, and lay their hands upon men’s heart-strings again, without becoming the

173 garment of as in old times?” (Sheppard, 330). The now marginalized poet, a slave to the uncertain market, expresses in his poetry his despair over a disappearing order. In this sense many Modernist poets saw themselves as “‘acrobats’ , ‘tightrope walkers’, ‘dancers’, required to maintain a precarious balance on the edge of a crumbling cliff” (Ibid, 330).94 Of course, who better than the immortal clown/acrobat, Harlequin, to transmit these sentiments? Benavente’s Harlequin-poet in “Cuento de primavera,” looks back to past tradition, to a bygone era to recapture the happiness of the poet. In “Los intereses creados,” the Harlequin-poet faces head-on the bleak future of those of his profession as he’s confronted with the values of the bourgeoisie in the modern, industrialized city. Later in “La cuidad alegre y confiada,” the Harlequin-poet has survived but continues cynical and forever trying to elevate his art as war and chaos descend. Benavente’s Harelquin-poets embody that sense of pessimism and homelessness that the Modernist Austrian poet, Rilke (1875-1926), promoted as another preoccupation of the Modernist poet, in believing that “man is not very securely at home in the world which he interprets with his intellect” (Ibid, 327). The depictions of Harlequin-poet by

Martínez Sierra and Valle-Inclán place him in a serene, idyllic world that transmits that tendency of Modernist poets to escape the portrayal of art as , as the chaos of the modern world is not worthy of artistic representation. Therefore a beautiful, visionary world is created, one where a renewal of language (poetic verse, in this case) masks any parallel with the new directions of modern society. These two Harlequin-poets, although fruitless in obtaining their lady-loves (wooed by means of their craft) continue on, even though they are defeated, “de-classed and dis-established.” Thus we see in these Spanish dramas the same themes that evidenced widespread European Modernist thought; but

94 The relationship between the author and his Harlequin figure is discussed in the Concluding Chapter 5. 174 here, in making their protagonists poets, these Spanish dramatists elevate the connection of the author with their subject, as they infuse their plays with the preoccupations of the

Modernist poet.

Moving from thematic comparisons to structural ones between Modernist Spanish commedia works (including those plays of Chapter Three) and the European ones

(Chapter Two), it is interesting to note that, unlike the Modernist European dramas that incorporated the commedia dell’arte in a realistic framework (I Pagliacci, Deburau,

Midsummer Madness, King Harlequin, The Venetian Madcaps and The Main Thing), the majority of these Spanish dramas opted not to introduce the characters in this light (with the exception of Martínez Sierra’s Las golondrinas and Valle-Inclán’s La marquesa

Rosalinda- where the commedia characters arrive to most likely put on a play).

Therefore, in forgoing a realistic framework, many of the Spanish playwrights -

Benavente, Ramírez Angel, García Lorca, Valle-Inclán (“Los cuernos de don Friolera”)

Grau, Martínez Sierra (Hechizo de amor) - resort to prefacing their plays with prologues in order to orient the reader, especially since many of these works are presented by dehumanized characters or puppets, and therefore benefit from an introduction. The use of puppets or puppet-like characters closely aligns with other European Modernist trends, given that Gordon Craig and Meyerhold were large proponents of liberating the stage from its domination by the actor, something that Grau credits Benavente as being the forbearer of in Spain (Sheehan, 17). Puppetry is incorporated into many of the Spanish commedia dramas (Drama en un bazar, Retablo de Don Cristobal, El Señor de

Pigmalion, “Los cuernos de don Friolera, El público, Así que pasen cinco años, Los intereses creados, La cuidad alegre y confiada, Hechizo de amor), thus aligning it with

175 the focus on unrealistic characterizations and the elevation of theatricality (or metatheatre, ie: the puppet play-within-a-play).

Moving away, then, from those larger trends that position these Spanish commedia plays within the international Modernist movement, it is interesting to note that the commedia dell’arte renovations in Spain are clearly art-for-art’s-sake, and at the same time they faintly purport social objectives. For example, in insisting that, “...for the first time in history his generation does not subordinate art to political or journalistic ends,” Martínez Sierra proudly defies the effect that the times have on the arts (Bretz,

47). However, in his essay, “De cómo el arte en esta tierra no acierta a reír,” he proposes that farce should be used as a transformational tool of reform: “Tal vez riendo se nos ensanche el corazón, tal vez pensemos, merced a la risa, que la vida es hermosa, y tal vez caigamos en la cuenta de que para vivirla hay que desperezarse...Acaso el buen humor de que tan necesitados andamos, sea la gran pedagogía nacional” (1903: 312). Social objectives are more discernable in Benavente and Valle-Inclán’s works, where in imbuing their Harlequins with cynicism, they contradict their merry image as clowns and agents of comedy and make the reader question the cause for such pessimistic undertones. This pessimism that takes root after the close of the Spanish-American war, can be described as a source of this cynicism. Only Benavente, however, is openly political is his La ciudad alegre y confiada, which mirrors Spanish politics during the

Great War. Central to the plot is the realization that no matter which side the “City”

(Spain) takes in the war between two neighboring Italian cities (Genoa and Venice- or the

Allies and the Central Powers) it will not evade victimization (Sheehan, 91). Through EL

DESTERRADO, Benavente expounds his beliefs on war as a means of commercial profit

176 and the hypocrisies that drive nations to propose pacifism or bloodshed, based on those interests: “Tú, que una vez levantaste al pueblo para impedir una guerra que convenía al decoro de la Cuidad y poco después quisiste levantarle para obligarnos a intervenir en favor de tus amigos y clientes los venecianos...” (193). The social criticism in Los intereses creados is not as pronounced, and is also masked by the triumph of love and the exaggerated characters. Valle-Inclán joins Benavente in his contemporary criticisms with satirical and grotesque commentaries on military tradition (“Los cuernos de don

Friolera”) and to some extent, the church (La marquesa Rosalinda).

So viewed, the commedia dell’arte, too, can be regarded as Modernist – another response to the forces of industrialization and intense state-building as well as brooding ideologies of progress, and the ways these factors served to destabilize existing forms of social order. As social criticism comes peeking through in one form or another in these works – though not as widely as one would imagine for the broader Zeitgeist – it becomes clear that the majority of these Spanish dramatists, either because of their age or their political ideology or both, are also escaping to past genres in their dramas as if to fend-off the march of modernity, if ever so slightly. Therefore commedia dell’arte theatre is not only adapted as a vessel for these “poets” to exhibit their verbal arts in a dramatic form, but also as a means to escape the chaos, misery and uncertainty of the present period through their art.

177

Final Conclusions

To conclude this analysis of the renovation of commedia dell’arte theatre in Spain during the Modernist period, and specifically the representation of Harlequin as a poet, it is important to return to the question of how much the times impacted the art. As many characteristics of the Italian improvisational commedia dell’arte (16th-18th centuries) were conserved in Modernist renderings- music, play-within-a-play, stock characters, masks, physical and verbal humor, comic entanglements and lovers’ conflicts- it can be difficult, at times, to measure what innovations in the art form were made from one century to the next. Commenting on Modernist theatre in Spain, Jacinto Benavente criticizes the movement that he supposedly represents in his short play, “Modernismo: Nuevos moldes.”95 In it he dismisses the notion of true innovation in literary movements, and although he doesn’t cite the commedia dell’arte directly, it is undoubtedly a perfect example of what UN MODERNISTA reveals to UN AUTOR NOVEL:

AUTOR. – Y usted ve: yo había escrito una comedia modernista, algo así como lo que usted escribe... MODERNISTA. – Perdone usted. Si seguimos hablando de modernismo, no nos entenderemos. No sé de nadie que en España se haya declarado oficialmente modernista ni cosa que lo valga. Esos motes los inventan los críticos y revisteros en su afán de encasillar, y, después que ellos los han inventado, se lo echan a uno en cara como un sambenito. Lo de modernismo, créalo usted, es una palabra más,

95 In the second edition of Teatro fantástico, which came out in 1905, the short play, “Modernismo: Nuevos moldes” appeared as an addition to the original collection (Huerta Calvo, 11).

178 una palabra cómoda, como todas las palabras, porque ahorra muchas ideas; dice usted modernismo, y se quita usted de pensar en muchas cosas; dice usted de un escritor que es modernista, y ya tiene usted hecho medio artículo crítico: la otra mitad, la traduce usted de Lemaître. No es preciso haberle leído para saber que la cuestión del modernismo es viejísima. En cualquier momento hay modernismo, como hay vejez y juventud en el mundo; que la juventud esté en oposición de ideas con la vejez, no quiere decir que las ideas de la juventud sean nuevas; basta con que sean otras. El romanticismo no era nuevo; tampoco lo era el naturalismo; menos aún el misticismo y el simbolismo. A una generación descreída y volteriana sucede, por lo general, una generación piadosa y creyente. Es el eterno espíritu de rebeldía. Peor, en arte ríase usted de nombre y de escuelas; todos los géneros son buenos: lo malo son los genéricos. AUTOR. – Luego usted cree que el modernismo, los nuevos moldes... MODERNISTA. -- ¡Conversación! No se trata de romper moldes; ensancharlos, en todo caso; ni eso, porque moldes sobrados hay en donde caben sin violencia cuantas obras de arte pueda producir el ingenio humano. Ridículo es hablar de moldes rotos en el teatro español, donde desde La Celestina a Calderón, en los autos sacramentales, hay moldes para todo lo real y lo ideal. Y esa ha de ser la significación del modernismo, si alguna ha de tener en arte; no limitar los moldes a los moldes de una docena de años y de dos docenas de escritores; considerar que, muchas veces, lo que parece nuevo no es sino renovación. (220-221).

This “renovación” that Benavente mentions, best describes the Modernists’ appropriation of the commedia dell’arte throughout Europe; in their rediscovery of the genre they aimed to use it to counter the dominant aesthetic of Realism-Naturalism, and although their productions were original works they were not innovative by any substantial means.

Therefore, just as the Modernists borrowed from the Symbolists and the Symbolists from

Shakespeare and Moliere, and they from Scala, Gozzi and Goldoni, and they from performances they witnessed, so were created these perpetual renovations, where the

179 traditional model is radically different from the most current rendering, but not so much if all of the transformations are considered along the way. If we can now understand how the French Symbolists inspired the Spanish Modernists to adopt Harlequin as a poet, is this then the only impetus behind his transformation from buffoon to poet?

This study focuses on the use of the commedia dell’arte characters and elements in drama, but we must not forget how, apart from in literature, the commedia vastly influenced the visual arts (drawings, paintings, sculpture, prints and advertisements), music and dance96; in studying the commedia dell’arte it soon becomes apparent that it can be found almost everywhere you look. Therefore, it is problematic to isolate the influences on Modernist drama without considering some of the other trends in Modernist

“arts.” Recalling the latin dictum, ut pictura poesis (“as in painting so in poetry”), we are reminded of the impact that Jean-Antoine Watteau’s eighteenth-century paintings of the commedia dell’arte characters had on many of the French Symbolist poets (King, 239).

For instance, Watteau’s Gilles (1719) captures the image of Pierrot (also called Gilles) with a strong psychological depth, which served as the inspiration for many artists and writers to elevate Pierrot above his station of zanni, and reveal a melancholic, human side to his persona. As Russell King observes in the poetry of some of the French Symbolists:

Banville’s “Le Saut du tremplin,” Baudelaire’s “Le Vieux Saltimbanque,” Verlaine’s “Le Clown,” Mallarmé’s “Le Pitre châtié” and Laforgue’s “Pierrots” all seek to suggest a modern, post-romantic image of the artist as a mocked and mocking performer. The full implications of this image...are sometimes

96 An example of how all of these forms come together around the commedia dell’arte theme is through the ballet, Parade (1917). A Gesamtkunstwerk (“total work of art”), Parade was a product of the talents of many key 20th century figures; it was concieved by the poet Jean Cocteau, the costumes, sets and curtain were designed and painted by Pablo Picasso, the music was written by Erik Satie and the ballet was choreographed by Léonide Massine and performed by Serge Diaghilev’s (Lawner, 177).

180 profoundly psychological, with the poet’s compulsion both to flaunt and to conceal the self...(238)

Therefore in connecting with this human side of the clown, or commedia character, many of these poets saw themselves in their art. In the twentieth century, the “self-portrait as a clown” also became a common allegory of the artist (King, 238).97 A few examples, among many, are Picasso’s At the Lapin Agile (1905), Edward Hopper’s Soir Blue

(1914), André Derain’s Harlequin (1919), and Georges Rouault’s numerous Pierrots.98

Another telling example emerges in a letter that the German Expressionist Ernst Ludwig

Kirchner (1880-1938) wrote in 1911 to fellow artist, Franz Marc, where he made his signature into a drawing of Pierrot, thus conveying the message that he is Pierrot

(Lawner, 189). Just as the clown becomes the alter ego for artists, this is also proved to be the case for some of the dramatists of the twentieth-century, especially Meyerhold who identified with Pierrot, and Evreinov who made a strong personal connection with the commedia dell’arte, dressing as a clown at dinner parties and remarking “I am

Harlequin and as Harlequin I shall die” (Fisher, 128).

Bearing in mind this personal identification of the artist with their subject, we can also uncover this relationship in those Modernist Spanish plays depicting Harlequin as a poet. In Benavente’s “Cuento de primavera,” the prologue is spoken by the character,

GANIMEDES, who refers to the author, Benavente, as “el poeta” in his monologue addressing the audience: “...y vosotros amantes desdeñados, que venís a disputar al poeta la atención y las miradas de una hermosa, id en busca de más grata beldad, no paguemos

97 This is also the case in the nineteenth-century, with artists such as Henri Rousseau, James Ensor, Gustave Courbet and Honoré Daumier (Lawner, 167-171). 98 For a detailed study of the commedia dell’arte’s presence in the visual arts, see part two of Lynne Lawner’s Harlequin on the Moon: Commedia dell’Arte and the Visual Arts. 181 nosotros el rencor de vuestro despecho.”(132) Such too is the case in Benavente’s Los intereses creados, where in the prologue the character, CRISPĺN, introduces the genre of the play to the audience, “Ilustró después su plebeyo origen con noble ejecutoria: Lope de

Rueda, Shakespeare, Molière, como enamorados príncipes de cuento de hadas, elevaron a

Cenicienta al más alto trono de la Poesía y del Arte. No presume de tan gloriosa estirpe esta farsa, que por curiosidad de su espíritu inquieto os presenta un poeta de ahora” (86).

Thus in these works the playwright presents himself as a poet, just as the buffoon is also introduced as a poet. Martínez Sierra, in his Hechizo de amor, similarly addresses his audience in the prologue through the character of a fantoche or puppet, who continually laments the fact that he is not a poet:

Quisiera en este instante, damas y caballeros, ser poeta para haceros con el ramillete de más perfumadas palabras el panegírico de la dulce desdicha, del aguijón amable, de la pasión fatal...Hubierais de oir, si tal poeta fuera, mis centelleantes y estallantes metáforas; hubierais de admirar la funambulesca maravilla de los vientos, las rosas, los cielos, las fuentes, los antros, las águilas, los rayos de sol y de luna (249).

Being that the puppet expresses himself so poetically, his negation of possessing poetic talent only comically reinforces the notion that he is indeed a poet. As this fantoche explains how the commedia cast is portrayed in the play and answers questions from

UNA MUCHACHA about the plot, we are less convinced that a puppet is addressing us and moreso that it is the author himself. Therefore here the association is even clearer, the author is a puppet-poet, just as both PIERROT and ARLEQUĺN are both depicted as puppet-poets. Moving on to Valle-Inclán’s La marquesa Rosalinda, the fact that the entire play, including the stage directions, is written in verse, the reader readily forms the

182 association between playwright and poet. Unlike the previously mentioned prologues in these Spanish Modernist plays, Valle-Inclán does not specify which of his characters is delivering the monologue. Therefore, as the subject of the prologue says, “Soy el poeta que el tablado puebla de trucos y babeles: Para el amor desesperado tengo rimas y cascabeles” (42) we are left with the ambiguity between the voice being that of the playwright or the most obvious character, ARLEQUĺN. As this motif of author as subject is hinted at in the majority of these Modernist Spanish dramas analyzed in the previous chapter, one can only speculate that there is some connection between these poets and their clown-poets.

Looking for a trend of this nature, the only other European Modernist play that depicted Harlequin as a poet was Clifford Bax’s Midsummer Madness (See Chapter Two,

England). Although Bax does introduce his drama with a prologue, it is comprised of spoken dialogue that introduces the main characters as actors about to put on a commedia dell’arte play which then follows. In that Midsummer Madness introduces the commedia cast in a realistic vein, it differs greatly from the worlds of these Spanish Harlequin-poets whose environments are constructed through fantasy and invention. Therefore with no clear trend to follow, as in the visual arts, we can only speculate that Benavente, Martínez

Sierra and Valle-Inclán identified with the character of Harlequin, and in doing so made him a poet in their own likeness. Poetry itself was very much a dominant component of

Modernist drama, given that it produced the unrealistic effect (in objection to the Realist-

Naturalist aesthetic) of having characters speak and express themselves in verse or poetic prose. In France, Jacques Copeau “championed the playwright as the poet of the theatre”

(Evans, 110) When imagining the direction that his Comédie Nouvelle would take, he

183 decided, “First of all I will play the role of poet vis-à-vis these farceurs. This new work will spring from me. I know what its origin will be and its first development” (Rudlin,

96). Edward Gordon Craig viewed the influx of Modernist poet-dramatists in a different light, which he expresses in his On the Art of the Theatre:

And I have just said that the modern dramatic poet is the child of the poet, and knows only how to reach the ears of his listeners, nothing else. And yet in spite of this does not the modern audience still go to the theatre as of old to see things, and not to hear things?

Nonetheless, being that many of these “poets” adopted the commedia dell’arte as the subject of their dramas, its inherently theatrical elements left audiences with plenty to see, if not also to hear. Therefore, as we have observed how Modernist playwrights considered themselves poets, and given the fact that Benavente, Martínez Sierra and

Valle-Inclán also portray their Harlequins as poets, we can assume that this practice followed the greater artistic trend. The conflation of poet and clown is, again, an element depicted in French Symbolist poetry, the movement that most inspired these Modernist

Spanish depictions of Harlequin-poet. Therefore it becomes less important what the individual motivations of these dramatists were, given that the source is the same.

What becomes apparent through this study is how much the commedia dell’arte was transformed to the greatest extent in France and what impact that specifically had in

Spanish renovations of the genre. Pierrot was created in France, and due to his dependence on physical humor, alongside Harlequin, the two overcame the language barrier and rose to individual success above all of the other stock characters. Molière was also an important figure, as he both recorded commedia scenari and embellished it in the seventeenth century, providing many European dramatists with the material to base their

184 own productions. Falling to low-brow fairground entertainment in the eighteenth century, the commedia was revived in the nineteenth century with Jean-Gaspard Debureau’s creation of the cult of Pierrot. Deburau’s pantomime shows at the Parisian Théâtre des

Funambules inspired the French Symbolists to embrace the commedia dell’arte and portray it with darker hues. At the forefront of the gradual innovation of this art form, it is no wonder then that some of the early twentieth-century Spanish dramatists adopted these

French “modernizations” into their own works.

Modernist drama throughout Europe celebrated a very rich renovation of commedia dell’arte theatre, as we are able to document its presence in Italy, France,

England, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark,

Sweden, and, as I have made a strong case for, Spain.99 Given that it is recognized on a global scale and still can be found on twenty-first-century stages100 is a testament to the inventiveness of its artistry. As the Catalan playwright, Adrià Gual, predicates in the introduction to his Arlequí vividor,

Es que la raça dels Arlequins es l’eterna raça còmica, es la condensació de tots els temps, lésprit de totes les èpoques, decorat amb trajos particulars, emancipant- se de tot moment exclusiu que pogués empetitir-la (10). (The race of Harlequins is the eternal comic race, the résumé of all times, the spirit of all epochs, wearing their own particular costumes, freeing themselves from any particular or exclusive moment which could diminish them.)101

99 This study only focuses on Europe and then so only the most widely documented uses of commedia dell’arte theatre. Branching out from Europe is only a brief mention of the presence of the commedia in the United States. 100 Even on a local level, I look to my town’s theatre programming every year and without fail I’ll find a commedia dell’arte title, be it The Servant of Two Masters, The Tricks of Scapin, Il Pagliacci etc. 101 This translation is David George’s, taken from page 47 of his book, The History of the Commedia dell’Arte in Modern Hispanic Literature. 185 This quote enforces the fact that given that Harlequin’s character evolved and even thrived in Modernist art does not necessarily label him a “Modernist”, but it does suggest that the commedia-inspired plays of the fin de siècle constituted a medium for constructing and representing a world of new desires and anxieties. So viewed, it may be suggested that Harlequin-poet, too, is an important reference point in mapping-out not only modernity’s impact on European art and culture (beginning in Baudelaire’s time) but also the complex artistry and meaning imbued in the Modernist subject.

186

Bibliography

Alessio, Antonio. “Pirandello and the commedia dell’arte.” Ed. Domenico Pietropaolo.

The Science of Buffoonery: Theory and History of the Commedia dell’Arte.

Ottawa: Dovehouse Editions, 1989.

Ávila Hesles, Gerardo. Arlequin y polichinela. Valle Inclan y Garcia Lorca estudio

comparativo, historico y literario sobre la commedia dell’arte y los titeres. Diss.

The University of British Columbia, 1985. Proquest Dissertations and Theses,

1985. AAT ML23577.

Bablet, Denis. Edward Gordon Craig. Trans. Daphne Woodward. London: Heinemann,

1966.

Banville, Théodore de. “Arlequin.” Ed. Victor Barrucand. Critiques. Paris: Charpentier,

1917.

---.“Le clown et le poète.” Ed. Victor Barrucand. Critiques. Paris: Charpentier, 1917.

Barker, Harley Granville and Dion Clayton Calthrop. The Harlequinade. An Excursion.

LaVergne: Dodo Publishing, 08 June 2010. http://www.dodopress.co.uk

Baroja, Pío. ¡Adiós a la bohemia!; Arlequín, mancebo de botica o los pretendientes de

Colombina; El horroroso crimen del peñaranda del campo. Ed. J. Rubio Jiménez.

Madrid: Editorial Biblioteca Nueva, 1998.

---. Entretenimientos. Madrid: Caro Raggio, 1996.

Barrie, J.M. “Pantaloon,” Collected Writings, Vol. 2. Kessinger Publishing, 31 December

187 2005. Web. 24 January, 2013. http://www.kessinger.net/

Bax, Clifford. Midsummer Madness: A play for music. New York: Frederick A Stockes

Company Publishers, 1923.

Beaumont, Cyril. The History of Harlequin. New York: Benjamin Blom, 1926.

Behn, Aphra. Emperor of the Moon. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2010.

Benavente, Jacinto. Campo de armiño y La cuidad alegre y confiada. Madrid: Espasa-

Calpe, 1960.

---. “Carnaval,” Obras completas. Vol. XI, Madrid: Aguilar, 1958.

---. “El teatro de los poetas.” Obras completas.Vol. VI. Madrid: Aguilar, 1963.

---. “Hoy hace años...” Obras completas. Vol. XI, Madrid: Aguilar, 1958.

---. Los intereses creados, Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 2001.

---. “Los payasos del circo.” Obras completas.Vol. VI. Madrid: Aguilar, 1963.

---. “Memorias.” Obras completas. Vol. XI, Madrid: Aguilar, 1958.

---. Teatro fantástico; La sonrisa de Gioconda. Ed. J. Huerta Calvo and E. Peral Vega,

Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 2001.

Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Trans. J.A.

Underwood. London: Penguin Books, 2008.

Berman, Marshall. All That Is Solid Melts Into Air. London: Penguin, 1988.

Blok, Aleksandr. “The Puppet Show.” Trans. and Ed. Michael Green. The Russian

Symbolist Theatre. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1986.

Bradbury, Malcolm and James McFarlane. “The Name and Nature of Modernism” Ed.

Malcolm Bradbury and James McFarlane. Modernism: 1890-1930. London:

Penguin Books, 1991.

188 ---. “Movements, Magazines and Manifestos: The Succession From Naturalism.” Ed.

Malcolm Bradbury and James McFarlane. Modernism: 1890-1930. London:

Penguin Books, 1991.

---. “The Cities of Modernism.” Ed. Malcolm Bradbury and James McFarlane.

Braun, Edward. The Theatre of Meyerhold: Revolution on the Modern Stage. London:

Eyre Methuen, 1979.

Bretz, Mary Lee. Encounters Across Borders: The Changing Visions of Spanish

Modernism, 1890-1930. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 2001.

Briusov, Valery. “Realism and Convention on the Stage (1908).” Ed. Bert Cardullo.

Theories of the Avant-Garde Theatre: A Casebook from Kleist to Camus.

Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2013.

Carlson, Marvin. Theories of the Theatre: A Historical and Critical Survey, from the

Greeks to the Present. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984.

Carnicke, Sharon M. The Theatrical Instinct: Nikolaj Evreinov and the Russian Theatre

of the Early Twentieth Century. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.

Clayton, J. Douglas. Pierrot in Petrograd: Commedia dell’Arte /Balagan in Twentieth

-Century Russian Theatre and Drama. Montreal: McGill-Queens’s University

Press, 1993.

Craig, Edward Gordon. “Critics Criticized -- A Revival in Italy,” The Mask, 5.2 (1912)

---. European Theatre from 1500-1900. Unpublished manuscript.

Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.

---. On the Art of the Theatre. Edited by Franc Chamberlain. New York: Routledge, 2009.

---. “The Characters of the Commedia dell’arte; A List Compiled by Gordon Craig,” The

189 Mask, 4.3 (1912)

---. “The Commedia dell’arte Ascending,” The Mask, 5.2 (1912)

---. The Mask. Sixteen volumes. New York: Benjamin A. Blom, 1967.

Darío, Rubén, “Melancólica sinfonía.” Introduction to Teatro de ensueño. (Martínez

Sierra, Gregorio. Teatro de ensueño. Madrid: Renacimiento, 1911.)

Dasté, Marie-Hélène. “Forward. Jacques Copeau’s School for Actors,” Mime Journal,

Nos. Nine and Ten, 1979, 4.

Diáz, José. Jacinto Benavente and his Theatre. Salamanca: Gráficas Ortega, 1972.

Dougherty, Dru and Andrew A. Anderson. “Continuity and Innovation in Spanish

Theatre, 1900-1936.” A History of Theatre in Spain. Ed. Maria M. Delgado and

David T. Gies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Dryden, Konrad. Leoncavallo Life and Works. Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2007.

Duchartre, Pierre Louis. The Italian Comedy. New York: Dover Publications, 1966.

Eco, Umberto. “Semiotics of Theatrical Performance.” The Drama Review, 21 (1977):

107-117.

Evans, Mark. Jacques Copeau. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Evreinov, Nikolai. “A Merry Death.” Trans. and Ed. Christopher Collins. Life as Theater:

Five Modern Plays. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1973.

---. “The Main Thing.” Life as Theater: Five Modern Plays. Trans. and Ed. Christopher

Collins. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1973.

Eystinsson, Astradur. The Concept of Modernism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.

Ferreres, Rafael. Verlaine y los modernistas españoles. Madrid: Gredos, 1975.

Fisher, James. “An Author in Search of Characters: Pirandello and Commedia dell’arte.”

190 Ed. Frederick Marker and Christopher Innes. Modernism in European Drama:

Ibsen, Strindberg, Pirandello, Beckett. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,

1998.

---. “Harlequinade: Commedia dell’Arte On the Early Twentieth-Century British Stage.”

Theatre Journal. 41.1 (1989): 30-44.

---. The Theatre of Yesterday and Tomorrow: Commedia Dell’Arte on the Modern Stage.

Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992.

Fletcher, John and James McFarlane “Modernist Drama: Origins and Patterns” Ed.

Malcolm Bradbury and James McFarlane. Modernism: 1890-1930. London:

Penguin Books, 1991.

García Lorca, Federico. Así que pasen cinco años. Ed. Margarita Ucelay. Madrid:

Cátedra, 1998.

---. Bodas de sangre; Amor de don Perlimplín con Belisa en su jardín; Retablillo de don

Cristóbal, : Losada, 1938.

---. El público. Ed. María Clementa Millán, Madrid: Cátedra, 1987.

George, David, The History of the Commedia Dell’arte in Modern Hispanic Literature

with Special Attention to the Work of Garcia Lorca, New York: The Edwin

Mellen Press, 1995.

---. “The commedia dell’arte and the Circus in the Work of Jacinto Benavente.” Theatre

Research International, vol VI, no. 2 (1981), 92-108.

Gherardi, Evaristo. Le théâtre italien. Vol. 1, Oxford: Taylor , 1864.

Gies, David Thacher. The Theatre in Nineteenth-Century Spain. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1994.

191 Goldoni, Carlo. Mémoirs. Trans. John Black. London: Hunt and Clark, 1828.

Golub, Spencer. “Mortal Masks: Yevreinov’s Drama in Two Acts.” Ed. Robert Russell

and Andrew Barratt. Russian Theatre in the Age of Modernism. New York: St.

Martin’s Press, 1990.

Gordon, Mel. Lazzi, The Comic Routines of the Commedia dell’Arte, New York:

Performing Arts Journal Publications, 1983.

Grau, Jacinto. El hijo pródigo; El señor de Pigmalión. Buenos Aires: Losada, 1940.

Green, Martin and John Swan. The Triumph of Pierrot: The Commedia dell’arte and the

Modern Imagination. University Park: Pennsylvania University Press, 1993.

González de Sande, Estela. “La commedia dell’arte: Fuente literaria del teatro español del

siglo XX.” ARCHIVUM- Revisat de la Facultad de Filología LVII (Oviedo:

Ediciones de la Universidad de Oviedo, 2007): 69-90.

Gual, Adrià. Arlequí vividor. Barcelona: no publisher, 1912.

---. La serenata. In vol. XVIII num. 303 of Lectura popular. Biblioteca d’autors

catalans. Barcelona: Ilustració Catalana, n.d.

Guitry, Sacha. Deburau. Trans. Harley Granville Barker. New York: Knickerbocker

Press, 1921.

Harrow, Susan. “From Symbolism to Modernism: Apollinaire’s Harlequin-Acrobat.” Ed.

David J. George and Christopher J. Gossip. Studies in the Commedia dell’Arte.

Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1993.

Hernández, Mario. Introducción de La zapatera prodigiosa. (García Lorca, Federico, La

zapatera prodigiosa. Madrid: Alianza, 1982.

Herr, Richard. An Historical Essay on Modern Spain. Los Angeles: University of

192 California Press, 1974.

Hobsbawm, Eric. The Age of Empire: 1875–1914, New York: Vintage, 1989.

---. The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991, London: Abacus,

1994.

Hofmannsthal, Hugo von. “Reinhardt as an International Force” Ed. Micheal Cherlin,

Halina Filipowicz and Richard L.Rudolph. The Great Tradition and Its Legacy:

The Evolution of Dramatic and Musical Theater in Austria and Central Europe.

New York: Berghahn Books, 2003.

Hough, Graham. “The Modernist Lyric” Ed. Malcolm Bradbury and James McFarlane.

Modernism: 1890-1930. London: Penguin Books, 1991.

Huerta Calvo, Javier and Emilio Peral Vega. Introducción de Teatro Fantástico; La

sonrisa de Gioconda. (Benavente, Jacinto, Teatro fantástico; La sonrisa de

Gioconda. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 2001.)

Innes, Christopher. Edward Gordon Craig: A Vision of the Theatre. Singapore: Harwood

Publishers,1998.

Iturriarte, Almudena del Olmo. Appendix of Los intereses creados. (Benevente,

Jacinto Los intereses creados, Madrid: Editorial Espasa-Calpe, 2001.)

Jennings, Michael W. Introduction to The Writer of Modern Life: Essays on Charles

Baudelaire, (Benjamin, Walter. The Writer of Modern Life:Essays on Charles

Baudelaire. Ed. Michael W. Jennings. Trans. Howard Eiland et. al. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 2006.)

Jiménez, Jesús Rubio and David George. “Modernism and the Avant-Garde in fin-de

-siècle Barcelona and Madrid,” A History of Theatre in Spain. Ed. Maria M.

193 Delgado and David T. Gies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

King, Russell P. “The Poet as Clown: Variations on a Theme in Nineteenth-Century

French Poetry,” Orbis Litterarum, 33 (1978): 238-251.

Knapp, Bettina. The Reign of the Theatrical Director: French Theatre 1887-1924. Troy:

Whitston Publishing, 1988.

Kurtz, Maurice. Jacques Copeau, Biography of a Theater. Carbondale: Southern Illinois

University Press, 1999.

Kuzmin, Mikhail. “The Venetian Madcaps.” Trans. and Ed. Michael Green. The Russian

Symbolist Theatre. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1986.

Lavaud, Jean-Marie and Eliane Lavaud. “Valle-Inclán y las marionetas entre la tradición

y la vanguardia.” Ed. Dru Dougherty and Maria Francisca Vilches de Frutos. El

teatro en España: entre la tradición y la vanguardia 1918-1939. Madrid:

Tabapress, 1992.

Lawner, Lynn. Harlequin on the Moon: Commedia dell’Arte and the Visual Arts. New

York: Harry N. Abrams, 1998.

Leoncavallo, Ruggero. “I Pagliacci.” The Opera Libretto Library. New York: Avenel

Books, 1980.

Lorch, Jennifer. “Commedia dell’Arte and Improvisation.” Ed. Christopher Cairns. The

Commedia Dell’Arte From the Renaissance to Dario Fo. New York: Edwin

Mellen Press, 1988.

Mallach, Alan. The Autumn of Italian Opera: From Verismo to Modernism, 1890-1915.

Lebanon: University Press of New England, 2007.

Martínez Sierra, Gregorio. Amanecer; Las golondrinas; El ideal. Madrid: Estrella, 1921.

194 ---. Comedias escogidas I: La sombra del padre, El ama de la casa, Hechizo de amor.

Madrid: V. Prieto y Compañía, 1911.

---.“De como el arte en esta tierra no acierta a reír. Helios 2:308-12.

McFarlane, James. “The Mind of Modernism.” Ed. Malcolm Bradbury and James

McFarlane. Modernism: 1890-1930. London: Penguin Books, 1991.

McManus, Donald. No Kidding! Clown as Protagonist in Twentieth-Century Theatre.

Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2003.

Mejías-López, Alejandro. The Inverted Conquest: The Myth of Modernity and the

Transatlantic Onset of Modernism. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2009.

Moody, C. “Vsevolod Meyerhold and the Commedia dell’arte.” The Modern Language

Review. 73.4 (1978): 859-869.

Nicoll, Allardyce. The World of Harlequin: A Critical Study of the Commedia

dell’arte, London: Cambridge University Press, 1963.

Niklaus, Thelma. Harlequin, The Rise and Fall of a Bergamask Rogue. New York:

George Braziller, Inc., 1956.

O’Brien, John. Harlequin Britain: Pantomime and Entertainment, 1690-1760. Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004.

Oliva, César, Introduction to La Marquesa Rosalinda, (Valle-Inclán, Ramon del, La

Marquesa Rosalinda, Madrid: Espasa, 1990.)

Oreglia, Giacomo. The Commedia dell’Arte. New York: Hill and Wang, 1968.

Ortega y Gasset, José. La deshumanización del arte. Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1968.

Pirandello, Luigi, “Introduction to the Italian Theater.” Trans. Anne Paolucci. Ed. Eric

195 Bentley. The Genius of the Italian Theater. New York: Mentor Books, 1964.

---. Six Characters in Search of an Author, Trans. John Linstrum, London: Methuen

Publishing, 2004.

Perkins, David. Is Literary History Possible? Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,

1992.

Pocknell, Brian. “The Théâtre du Vieux Colombier and the Renewal of the Commedia

dell’Arte in France.” Ed. Domenico Pietropaolo. The Science of Buffoonery:

Theory and History of the Commedia dell’Arte. Toronto: Dovehouse Editions,

1989.

Preston, Paul. The Triumph of Democracy in Spain. London: Routledge, 1987.

Purdom, C.B. Harley Granville Barker: Man of the Theatre, Dramatist and Scholar.

London: Rockliff Publishing, 1955.

Ramírez Ángel, E., “Drama en un bazar,” Mundos 203 (December, 1911), 951-959.

Reinhardt, Max. “Of Actors,” The Yale Review, 18 (1928) 1, 36-37.

Robert Johnstone, "The Impossible Genre: Reading Comprehensive Literary Histories,"

PMLA 107 (1992): 26-37.

Rudlin, John. Commedia dell’arte: An Actor’s Handbook. London: Routledge, 1994.

---. Jacques Copeau. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Salenius, Elmer W. Harley Granville Barker. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1982.

Scala, Flaminio. Il Teatro delle facole rappresentative. Trans. Henry Salerno.

New York: New York University Press, 1967.

Schnitzler, Arthur. “The Transformation of Pierrot.” Trans. G.J. Weinberger. Paracelsus

& Other One-Act Plays. Riverside: Ariadne Press, 1995.

196 ---. “The Veil of Pierrette.” Trans. G.J. Weinberger. Paracelsus & Other One-Act Plays.

Riverside: Ariadne Press, 1995.

Segel, Harold. “Pantomime, Dance, Sprachskepsis, and Physical Culture in German and

Austrian Modernism” Ed. Oliver Sayler. Max Reinhardt and his Theatre. New

York: Brentano’s, 1924.

---. Pinocchio’s Progeny: Puppets, Marionettes, Automatons and Robots in Modernist

and Avant-Guarde Drama. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.

Semar, John [pseudonym for Gordon Craig]. “The Commedia dell’arte or Professional

Comedy,” The Mask, 3 (1910): 4-6.

---. “The Commedia dell’arte or Professional Comedy,” The Mask, 3 (1911): 10-12.

Sheehan, Robert Louis. Benavente and the Spanish Panorama 1894-1954. Madrid:

Castalia, 1976.

Sheppard, Richard. “The Crisis of Language” Ed. Malcolm Bradbury and James

McFarlane. Modernism: 1890-1930. London: Penguin Books, 1991.

Soufas, C. Christopher. The Subject in Question: Early Contemporary Spanish Literature

and Modernism. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007.

Storey, Robert. Pierrots on the Stage of Desire: Nineteenth-Century French Literary

Artists and the Comic Pantomime. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985.

Tairov, Alexander. Notes of a Director. Trans. and introduction William

Kuhlke. Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press, 1969.

Taxidou, Olga. The Mask: A Periodical Performace by Edward Gordon Craig.

Amsterdam: Hardwood Academic Publishers, 1998.

Tillich, Paul. “Nietzsche and the Bourgeois Spirit.” Journal of the History of Ideas,

197 Vol. VI, No. 3 (Jun., 1945), 307-309.

Urmenyhazi, Wallis. Arlequin porte-parole de la philosophie du siecle des lumieres

Diss. The University of Pittsburgh, 1985. Ann Arbor, UMI, 1985. AAT 8617258.

Valle-Inclán, Ramón del. La Marquesa Rosalinda, Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1990.

---. “Los cuernos de don Friolera,” Martes de Carnaval. Madrid:

Espasa-Calpe, 2002.

---. Luces de Bohemia. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1961.

198

Top View