Sede Amministrativa: Università degli Studi di Padova Dipartimento di Studi Linguistici e Letterari (DISLL) SCUOLA DI DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN: Scienze Linguistiche, Filologiche e Letterarie INDIRIZZO: Filologie e Letterature Classiche e Moderne CICLO XXVI “Armine... thou art a foole and knaue”: The Fools of Shakespeare’s Romances Direttore della Scuola : Ch.ma Prof.ssa Rosanna Benacchio Supervisore : Ch.ma Prof.ssa Alessandra Petrina Dottoranda : Alice Equestri Abstract La mia tesi propone un’analisi dettagliata dei personaggi comici nei romances Shakespeariani (Pericles, Cymbeline, The Winter’s Tale e The Tempest) in particolare quelli creati appositamente per Robert Armin, attore comico di punta dei King’s Men in quel periodo. Nel primo capitolo traccio la presenza di Armin nei quattro testi, individuando cioè gli indizi che rimandano alla sua figura e alla tipologia di comicità tipica dei suoi personaggi precedenti in Shakespeare e di quelli presenti nelle sue stesse opere. I quattro personaggi creati per lui da Shakespeare vengono analizzati in profondità nei seguenti capitoli, raggruppandoli a seconda dei loro ruoli sociali o professioni. Nel secondo capitolo mi occupo dei fools criminali, considerando Pericles e The Winter’s Tale, dove i personaggi di Boult e Autolycus sono rispettivamente un ruffiano di bordello e un delinquente di strada. Nel terzo capitolo mi concentro invece sui personaggi che esibiscono o vengono discriminati per una reale od imputata deficienza congenita (natural folly): il principe Cloten in Cymbeline e Caliban in The Tempest. Per ciascun caso discuto il rapporto del personaggio con le fonti shakespeariane ed eventualmente con la tradizione comica precedente o contemporanea a Shakespeare, il ruolo all’interno del testo, e il modo in cui il personaggio suscita l’effetto comico. Una parte importante di questi due capitoli è dedicata ad un analisi storico-testuale dei personaggi in rapporto alla situazione storica dell’Inghilterra di fine Cinquecento/inizio Seicento per quanto riguarda lo sfruttamento della prostituzione, la criminalità derivante dal vagabondaggio (secondo capitolo, Boult e Autolycus), e la nozione di disabilità mentale in medicina e società (terzo capitolo, Cloten e Caliban). Nel corso dell’analisi dei personaggi cerco in particolare di evidenziarne le ambiguità e i tratti tragicomici, che sono importanti in relazione allo specifico genere drammatico a cui questi testi afferiscono. Inoltre, discuto la drammatizzazione dei personaggi in rapporto alla nozione di follia sia come depravazione nel tardo medioevo e nel rinascimento, sia come giocosa e risibile innocenza nei precedenti lavori di Robert Armin, cercando di dare ulteriore forza alle recenti linee di ricerca che vedono l’opera di Shakespeare come il risultato di una collaborazione con i suoi attori e in particolare con il suo comico principale. Il capitolo conclusivo raccoglie le analogie tra i quattro personaggi e mette a fuoco le differenze tra questi e i personaggi comici precedenti interpretati da Armin. Table of Contents List of Illustrations 7 Preface 9 1. Actor and clown in Shakespeare’s romances 17 1.1 Armin, the new clown 17 1.2 Erasmus, wise fools and Armin’s descending parabola 24 1.3 Life and times of Robert Armin 33 1.4 The clown in print: Armin’s works 37 1.5 Armin in the romances, 1608-1612 43 1.5.1 Pericles 46 1.5.2 Cymbeline 53 1.5.3 The Winter’s Tale 60 1.5.4 The Tempest 65 2. The Underworld Fool: Pericles and The Winter’s Tale 69 2.1 Boult 74 2.2 Autolycus 95 2.3 Boult, Autolycus, criminality and folly in Shakespeare’s Age 133 3. The Natural Fool: Cymbeline and The Tempest 141 3.1 Cloten 144 3.2 Caliban 186 3.3 Cloten and Caliban: disability, depravity and devilish mothers 223 4. Armin’s last fools in Shakespeare: drawing conclusions 231 Bibliography 247 List of Illustrations 1. Mair Von Landshut, The Brothel, La Banderole Présentée (Vienna, private collection, 1485-1510) 86 2. Lucas Van Leyden, The Old Man and the Courtesan (London, British Museum, 1520-1550) 86 3. Heinrich Vogtherr, The Procuress (London, British Museum, 1537) 86 4. Nicholas Jennings, from The Groundworke of Conny-Catching (San Marino, CA, Huntigton Library, 1592, sig. D1v) 108 5. Renold Elstrack, While Maskinge in Their Folleis All Doe Passe, Though All Say Nay Yet All Doe Ride the Asse (London, British Museum, 1607) 139 6. Misero (‘The beggar’), The Tarots of Mantegna (print made by Hans Ladenspelder, London, British Museum, 1530-1561) 139 7. Utrecht Psalter, Dixit Insipiens (Utrecht University Library, MS Script. Eccl. 484, fol. 7v, 9th century) 167 8. Eadwine Psalter, Dixit Insipiens (Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R. 17.1, fol. 22r, 12th century) 167 9. John White, A Pictish Warrior Holding a Human Head (London, British Museum, 1585-1593) 174 10. Hans Hanberg, Fools (London, British Museum, 1568) 207 11. Quentin Massys, Ill-Matched Lovers (Washington, National Gallery of Art, 1520-1525) 207 12. Pieter Bruegel, Operating the Fool’s Stone (Saint-Omer, France, Musée Sandelin, early 17th century) 208 13. Pieter Bruegel, The Cripples (Paris, Musée du Louvre, 1568) 208 14. Hieronymus Bosch, The Ship of Fools (Paris, Musée du Louvre, 1494-1510) 209 7 8 Preface Pericles, Cymbeline, The Winter’s Tale and The Tempest are a group of plays which have caused quite a controversy among recent criticism as concerns the choice of a conventional label that best describes their genre.1 Edward Dowden in 1877 was the first to call them romances, a label that was supposed to emphasise the uncommonness of the circumstances and the “grave beauty” or “sweet serenity” of their atmospheres;2 a label that is still widely used, but which in Shakespeare’s time indicated chivalric tales in verse, and not drama. At the same time, if the plays do seem to have a lot in common with Greek romances, through medieval romances, contemporary prose or verse romances (e.g. Sidney’s Arcadia or Spenser’s The Faerie Queene) and Elizabethan dramatized romances (Clyomon and Clamydes, Cambises, Love and Fortune, Mucedorus), on the other the term is a little restrictive to account for the freedom Shakespeare shows in the handling of its conventions.3 The other label with which these plays are commonly referred to is tragicomedies, which aptly takes into account the literary influences of other authors, such as Beaumont and Fletcher, who were testing this dramatic mode in Shakespeare’s time,4 after borrowing it from 1 For an overview of such issues see for example Barbara A. Mowat, “What’s in a Name? Tragicomedy, Romance or Late Comedy”, in Richard Dutton and Jean E. Howard, eds., A Companion to Shakespeare’s Works, Vol. 4, Oxford: Blackwell, 2003, pp. 129-149, Gordon McMullan, “What is a ‘late play’?”, in Catherine M.S. Alexander, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s Last Plays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 5-28 or Gordon McMullan, “‘The Neutral Term’?: Shakespearean Tragicomedy and the Idea of the ‘Late Play’”, in Subha Muckherji and Raphael Lyne, ed., Early Modern Tragicomedy, Woodbridge: D.S. Brewer, 2007, pp. 115-132. 2 Edward Dowden, Shakspere, London: Macmillan, 1877, pp. 55-56. 3 For Shakespeare and romance see Howard Felperin, Shakespearean Romance, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972, pp. 3-54. Also Helen Cooper, The English Romance in Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. 4 Fletcher’s The Faithful Shepherdess was premiered in 1608 and probably first published in 1609. In any case, it almost certainly postdates Pericles. Beaumont and Fletcher wrote the tragicomedy Philaster probably in 1608-1609 but, since it shares some names and motifs with Cymbeline, scholars debate whether it predates Shakespeare’s play or not. On tragicomedy see Verna A. Foster, The Name and Nature of Tragicomedy, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003 esp. ch. 3 on Shakespearean tragicomedy, Joan Hartwig, Shakespeare’s Tragicomic Vision, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1972, David L. Hirst, Tragicomedy, London and New York: Methuen, 1986, Marvin T. Herrick, Tragicomedy: Its Origin and Development in Italy, France and England, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962, esp. ch. 8. 9 the Italian tradition, that found its greatest representative in Gianbattista Guarini, the first theorist of the genre (Compendio della Poesia Tragicomica, 1601) and the author of the tragicomic play Il Pastor Fido (1590). However, such a label adds the issue that other plays could fit into this category, such as All’s Well That Ends Well, Measure for Measure, Troilus and Cressida or The Merchant of Venice. So sometimes the two names have been fused to call the plays romantic tragicomedies. Or other scholars have decided to go for the “neutral” designation “late plays” which, if on the one hand keeps problems of genre reasonably at bay, on the other may include also the texts written after The Tempest and does not seem completely fitting for Pericles which, being a collaborative work, is a “late” play for Shakespeare but not for George Wilkins; besides, this label shifts the question onto the definition of what “late writing” exactly means, in connection with authorship and style.5 So it is clear how any name we give to these plays – romances, tragicomedies, romantic tragicomedies, tragicomic romances, late or last plays, late Shakespearean comedies, etc. – is cogent and problematic at the same time. However, being forced to choose a designation I have decided to stick mainly with the traditional romances, for reasons of clarity and completeness (as well as conciseness). This term actually includes the concept of tragicomedy: indeed, comparing these texts with the plots of pre-Shakespearean plays like Mucedorus, Placy Dacy or Love and Fortune, Barbara Mowat argues that “romance stories as dramatized on the early English stage are in essence tragicomic” in the sense that they “preceded formal ‘breakdown’ into tragedy and comedy”.6 At any rate, whatever term is used to refer to Pericles, Cymbeline, The Winter’s Tale and The Tempest, few critics currently object to the fact that these four plays do actually 5 McMullan, “‘The Neutral Term’”, p.