Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:37:20.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Playing the Fool: the Pragmatic Status of Shakespeare's Clowns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2009

Roberta Mullini
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The fool occupies an uneasy place in Shakespear's plays-half way between character and commentator, in part carrying over his real-life role as jester into the ‘court-world’ of the play, but also serving as a metadramatic intermediary between author and audience. And of course, Shakespeare's use of the role in turn modifies our own expectations and understanding of it. Roberta Mullini. of the University of Bologna, here examines the full range of the fools created by Shakespeare, both in terms of their specific dramatic functions, and as holders of the ‘fool's licence’ to disrupt language, action, and the very relationship between seeming and being.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Theatre Quarterly , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , February 1985 , pp. 98 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes and References

1. I have dealt more extensively with these aspects of the fool in Corruttore di parole; il fool nel teatro di Shakespeare (Bologna: CLUEB, 1983).

2. Cf. Lotman, J., ‘Problema znaka i znakovoj sistemy i tipologija russkoj kul'tury XI-XIX vekov’, in Stat'i po tipologii kultury, I (Tartu, 1970)Google Scholar.

3. Cf, Corti, M., ‘Modellie antimodelli nella cultura medievale’, Strumnti critici, 35 (1978)Google Scholar.

4. Cf. Armin, R., Foole upon Foole, in The Collected Works, with introductions by Feather, J. P. (New York: London: Johnson Rprint Corporation, 1972), E2–1Google Scholar.

5. For a more detailed study of both court-and stage-fools, cf. Welsford, E., The Fool: His Social and Litrary History (London: Faber, 1935)Google Scholar; and Willeford, W., The Fool and His Sceptre: a Study in Clowns and Jesters and their Audience (London: Arnold, 1977)Google Scholar. Among the many articles on the subject, see particularly Evans, G. L., ‘Shakspeare's Fools: the Nature and the Substance of Drama’, in Palmer, D. and Bradbury, M. eds., Shakesparian Comedy (London: Arnold, 1972)Google Scholar, for its specific stress on the actor/character and stage/audience relationships.

6. , Erasmus, Praise of Folly, trans. Radice, Betty, Chapter XXXVI (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971)Google Scholar.

7. Here I make use of the concepts of ‘time-on’ and ‘time-off’ activities as introduced by Goffman, E., in Intraction Ritual (Chicago: Aldine Press, 1967)Google Scholar.

8. Madness and Civilization: a History of Insanity in the Age of Reason (London: Tavistock Publications, 1977), abridged translation, pp. 30–31.

9. This quotation and the following are taken from the Arden Editions of Shakespeare's plays.

10. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., and Jackson, D. D., in Pragmatics of Human Communication (New York: Norton, 1967)Google Scholar, underline the relationship between the speaker's social and/or contextual status and his actual discourse.

11. Armin, op. cit., B2–2.