“Classifying Shakespeare’s Comic Heroes”

Shakespeare drew so many different comic heroes that

to try to classify them would be an impossible task however

for the sake of economy we can consider most Shakespeare’s

comic heroes would fit into any of the three following

groupings, that of the boaster, the fool or the scoundrel.

According to most critics the greatest among all the

great characters Shakespeare ever drew are Hamlet, Shylock

and Falstaff. As the subject of this essay is the

classification of Shx’s comic heroes, Falstaff is the one

that concerns us at the present time. Falstaff has been

described as an alazon type, a boaster, an impostor. In

“The Meanings of Comedy” Wylie Sypher following Arist’s

reasoning in the chapter of his Ethics dedicated to the

truth, defines comedy as a struggle (agon) in which the

alazon or impostor, who claimed more than his share of the

victory, was brought to confusion by the eiron or ironical

man, who pretended ignorance. (“The alazon is a boaster who

claims more than a share of the … victory”). And this can

be seen in Henry IV, Pt 1, Act 2, sc. 4, 160-265 (190-280)

Show the scene in which he boasts of / about having killed

X number of people.). As we have just seen Falstaff claims

to have been fighting with an ever increasing number of

enemies while Hal pretends not to know anything about it.

As soon as Falstaff begins to talk and notices he is

listened to he grows himself up and starts swelling his

lies upt to the point that his “two rogues in buckram

suits” become eleven. (as Maurice Charney has pointed out)

Falstaff is a comedian and great talker and “he is never at

a loss for words” (64), because once he realizes everybody

knows the truth / he has been taken in / he pretends he was

in the know from the first moment. Because as Charney says

Falstaff “always maintains his … resourcefulness.”

1

“Falstaff is not only “an entertainer and a comic

philosopher,” he is also “an indispensable spokesman for …

life values” (64)). Because more than any other Shx’s

hero /character Falstaff represents today’s values.

Falstaff will always choose life. We have only to remember

that Prince Hal before the battle tells Falstaff “Thou

owest God a death” (v.1.126), but Falstaff’s soliloquizes

that (quote): “´Tis not due yet” and goes on expressing his

philosophy of honour. Contrary to what Cervantes thought

about his loss of an arm

PRINCE HENRY.Why, thou owest God a death. [Exit.]

SIR JOHN FALSTAFF.

'Tis not due yet; I would be loth to pay him before his day. What need I be so forward with him that calls not on me? Well, 'tis no matter; honour pricks me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I come on? how then? Can honour set 5/1/130

to a leg? no: or an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no. Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no. What is honour? a word. What is that word honour? air. A trim reckoning!- Who hath it? he that died o' Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no. Doth he hear it? no. 'Tis insensible, then? yea, to the dead. But will it not live with the living? no. Why? detraction will not suffer it. Therefore I'll none of it: honour is a mere scutcheon:- and so ends my catechism.

And this is Falstaff the greatest and most comic but not

the only one of the alazon types that Shx created.

The second comic type we are going to analyse is the

Fool. Many types of fool can be found in Shx’s plays but I

am going to centre myself on the two extremes of the whole

range /spectrum of fools that Shx designed: the wise or

smart fool and the extremely stupid. The wise fool would be

the one that Sypher calls the natural fool, whose mission

was to divert “the wrath of the gods from the anointed

figure of the king” (Sypher 39), that would help to explain

why in King Lear the fool is the one to be hanged, if we

take Lear’s words in the final scene as applied to his Fool

2

also, not only to Cordelia. But if in tragedy the Fool was

the scapegoat, the one to suffer the wrath of the gods, he

was also the only one aloud to speak his mind. We have only

to remember that in King Lear, Lear doesn’t accept the

slightest piece of disagreement or criticism. Lear was

capable of disowning his dearest daughter and exiling his

most loyal knight only because they asked to reconsider,

while he accepts the whole truth from the Fool’s mouth and

in spite of his continues threats about the whip, he never

uses it on him, as one critic has pointed out. Contrary to

what happens in tragedy in Shx’s comedy the Fool is never

punished and he is always in good standing with his master

as it happens in act I, scene 5 of TN when Olivia defends

Feste, her clown, from Malvolio’s criticism: “There is no

slander in an allowed fool, though he do nothing but rail”

(94-95). This is the smart fool, the one capable to

disarm / put down his opponent with his witticisms.

On the other extreme of the spectrum there was the

extremely foolish, the simpleton. It is difficult to tell

if Shakespeare enjoyed that type of humour or if he created

these silly characters as a concession to the gallery, to

the less cultivated part of the audience. Some of the

punning and witty exchanges in Shakespeare’s plays are so

elaborated that we readers or viewers without the help of

many of those footnotes wouldn’t be able to understand, and

this critic cannot believe that in Shakespeare time the

whole audience caught the meaning of each one of the

hundreds of witticisms Shakespeare used in every play

/understood every single piece of witticism. And I like to

believe that, not only for the sake of relieving tension,

but also because Shakespeare took into account every

member of his audience and tried to please or to give

something to laugh about to each one of them. That would

explain why he retorts to that kind of universal humour

3

once and again. Shakespeare used many of these simpletons

especially in his comedies, and of those I am going to

focus on the mechanicals in MSND, described by Philostrate

as “Hard-handed men that work in Athens here / Which never

laboured in their minds till now” (V.i.72-73). The humour

of this type of characters relies mainly on the use of

malapropisms. So for Bottom a lion is a wild-fowl, or he

chooses to say “obscenely” (I.2.100) when “seemly” would be

a more proper word, and we should take into account /

mention also in this very scene, the mechanicals’ (stupid)

idea that the audience would believe them to be the roles

they are playing of. As for ex. Bottom’s request that

Snug the joiner tell the audience he is really a man and

not a lion in order not to make the ladies afraid (MSND

3.1.38-43), or their confusion of the senses, especially on

Bottom’s scriptural parody, on awakening after what he

believes it was a dream:

Theeye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen,man's hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceive,nor his heart to report, what my dream was! (IV.1.208-211)

However Bottom is not always stupid, he sounds pretty alert

/down to earth / smart when after hearing Titania’s

flatteries addressed to him, once she has been bewitched by

Oberon, he answers (quote): (3.1.135-39):

Methinks, mistress, you should have little reason for that: 3/1/120and yet, to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together now-a-days;- the more the pity that some honest neighbours will not make them friends. Nay, I can gleek upon occasion.

Some of the scenes of the Mechanicals have a lot

potential for humour. And with all probability Shx allowed

4

lots of freedom to his clowns. I assume the clown actor/s

indulged in horse-playing and there was much public

interaction. (Show for example the play within the play in

the Hollywood version of MSND), and the meal in Pet’s house

or talk a little about Elbow’s use of malapropisms, & show

his picture.

According to Graham Holderness in his W Sh: Romeo and

Juliet, that the term clown was usually applied in the

Elizabethan texts to a basically comic minor character not

to the professional jester (9). However in Shx’s plays this

is not always the case, Twelfth Night’s Feste is called

clown and not jester, while Trinculo of The Tempest is

called jester, and there is a big difference between both

characters; while Trinculo doubts if Caliban is a fish,

Feste is a very smart fool.

And finally we are left with the third kind of comic

hero used by Shakespeare, the scoundrel. According to David

Grote, “the most prominent major persona of the comic hero”

(44), because he is the one who makes things really happen

in a comedy. The scoundrel in order to be requires the

existence of an innocent, of somebody who doesn’t know the

nature of the world / evil. This is very well explained /

especially exemplified by Lázaro himself in that passage in

El Lazarillo in which Lázaro narrates his awakening to the

real nature of the world. Lázaro will be awakened to wordly

wisdom by the blind man's blow on his head against the bull

of stone, as he says:

It seemed to me that, in an instant, I awoke from my simplicity in which I had reposed from childhood. I said

5

to myself, "This man says truly that it behooves me to keep my eyes open, for I am alone and have to think for myself" (14-5).i (in the original)

At the beginning, Lazaro is innocent (Cf Grote) but

because of his bad experience with the blind man Lázaro turns

into a pícaro, a character endowed with the attributes that

Charney assigns to the comic hero in general:

... unusual alertness [is] demanded of the comic hero. He must, at all costs, be ready for whatever turns up, and not only ready, but also skillful, versatile, ingenious, spontaneous, and improvisatory. (11)

or a scoundrel as defined by Grote "the man who really makes

things happen in the comedy" (44). The blind man could fool

Lázaro because he once or perhaps twice while this is still

innocent. But Lázaro will try to gain wisdom after the

first and extremely painful practical joke of the blind man

and especially after his advice: “Necio, aprende, que el

mozo del ciego un punto ha de saber más que el diablo”, as

he observes: “Verdad dice éste, que me cumple avivar el ojo

y avisar, pues solo soy, y pensar como me sepa valer”

(Blecua 96).

However this is not exactly the case in Shakespeare’s

comedies. Among his characters we find scoundrels, who in

most of the cases happen to be just / only practical jokers

will need of a fool or an innocent, as for ex., Autolycus

and the shepherds in The Winter’s Tale or Puck and the

mechanicals or Oberon and Titania. But these characters we

are calling scoundrels and in most cases they are only

practical jokers. Charney claims that the villain, usually

associated with evil, the subject of tragedy, is an

anomalous type in comedy. "At the end, he is either

reconciled to the new society of the young and pure in heart

6

(who marry or are about to marry), or is expelled from

it ..." (127). However, Charney seems to contradict this

assumption with later statements. In them Charney assures

that comedy is cruel "because it takes a position apart from

morality and accepted standards," that "morality is ... a

middle-class luxury" (171), and that "[c]omic heroes tend to

fight dirty" as "they generally ignore abstract questions of

moral truth" (171). What has happened to the "young and

pure in heart"? Charney also believes that "Since he has

no stake in society, he has absolutely nothing to lose, and

he can therefore gives his imagination free rein." (62) Then

there are other characters who are usually outside society

like Autolycus in The Winter’s Tale and those who have

nothing to lose like Pet, a class of his own, who doesn’t

have a fool of his own, and ends up being fooled by Kate.

Kate Petruchied or Petrucho Kated as Gremio comments in

(III.2.245). Tranio could be considered a scoundrel, but so

could be Oberon, Puck & Pet. But it is not so sure Tranio

wanted to marry Bianca, to leave his master w.o. bride, but

he denies his old master, with the result that Vincentio

hadn’t Lucio happened to appear at that very moment would

have been sent to jail & Tranio is not punished. He is even

eating at the table with his masters & is called Senior

Tranio by Pet. We could think that he is not a servant but

a tutor, But he is not even high class, because as

Vincentio says he is the son of a sailmaker of Bergamo.

7

The others could be considered practical jokers mainly

but Falstaff is also considered by some critics to be a

rogue, because he steals, and he owns his hostess not only

drink, food and board but shirts. And Falstaff is not only

an alazon and a scoundrel he is sometimes a fool, a

buffoon, a jester, because he is never at a loss for words,

and he is also comedian, a practical philosopher and a

spokesman for today’s or life’s values. That is why

Falstaff becomes the greatest of all Shakespeare’s comic

heroes because he joins in his persona the three types of

comic heroes Shx designed the alazon, the fool and the

scoundrel.

8

(127-141)(“Can honour heal a leg? No.” Show the scene). And

this is Falstaff the greatest and most comic but not the

only one of the alazon types that Shx created.

One of The most common of Shx’s comic heroes seems to be

the agroikos or rustic using Northrop Frye’s terminology,

according to Abrams?

Dromios: are not fools, they are pretty smart & witty,

especially Dromio of Syracuse who according to his master

has a great sense of humor:

A trusty villain, sir; that very oft,When I am dull with care and melancholy, Lightens my humour with his merry jests.

(1.2.19-21)

Boasters: Falstaff, Paroles & Lucio.

Fool: many dif types of fools. Polonius is a fool”, & so

are Osric, Rosencratz & Guildersten. The audience may find

them funny but no so Hamlet, “These tedious old fools!”

(II.2.219) or the Queen “More matter with less art”

(II.2.95) show impatience. Also a fool could be Hortensio

in T of the S, after Katherina makes him look ridiculous.

And then there is another kind of fool, the extremely dumb,

the dummy. The extremely foolish, an unbelievable

character, probably created as a concession to the gallery,

to the less cultivated or educated part of the audience.

The humour of this type of characters rely on the use of

malapropisms. Bottom’s request that Snug the joiner tell

the audience he is a man and not a real lion (MSND 3.1.38-

43)

BOTTOM.Nay, you must name his name, and half his face must be seen

9

through the lion's neck; and he himself must speak through, 3/1/30saying thus, or to the same defect,- "Ladies,"- or, "Fair ladies,- I would wish you,"- or, "I would request you,"- or "I would entreat you,- not to fear, not to tremble: my life for yours. If you think I come hither as a lion, it were pity of my life: no, I am no such thing; I am a man as other men are:"- and there, indeed, let him name his name, and tell them plainly he is Snug the joiner.

; but Bottom is not always that stupid, he sounds pretty

smart when he tells Titania: (3.1.135-39).:

TITANIA.I pray thee, gentle mortal, sing again:Mine ear is much enamour'd of thy note;So is mine eye enthralled to thy shape;And thy fair virtue's force perforce doth move me,On the first view, to say, to swear, I love thee.

BOTTOM.Methinks, mistress, you should have little reason for that: 3/1/120and yet, to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together now-a-days;- the more the pity that some honest neighbours will not make them friends. Nay, I can gleek upon occasion.

TITANIA.Thou are as wise as thou art beautiful.

BOTTOM.Not so, neither: but if I had wit enough to get out of this wood, I have enough to serve mine own turn.

Scoundrel could be Hamlet but he is a very complicated

character to be so easily labelled. There are other

characters who could be better qualified as scoundrels like

Autolycus, Tranio, Petruccio, Pandare (a bawd) & Puck.

“Classifying Shakespeare’s Comic Heroes”

Shakespeare drew so many different comic heroes that to try

to classify them would be an impossible task however for

the sake of economy / simplification we can consider most

10

Shx’s comic heroes will fit into any of the three following

groupings, that of the boaster, the fool or the scoundrel.

Trying to classify Shakespeare’s comic heroes seems a very

ambitious enterprise, however Shakespeare’s comic heroes

usually belong to any of the 3 following types: they are

either a boaster, a fool or a scoundrel, the fool being the

one who admits most variations. Because together with

Lear’s fool, who is not even a fool, there are other types

of fools like Polonius, Osric and even Rosencrantz or

Guildenstern, whom the audience may find at times funny but

not so Hamlet, whose “These tedious old fools” or the

Queen’s “More matter, with less art” betray impatience. And

then there is the extreme fool, the rustic in Northrop

Frye’s terminology, a character who if he happens to say or

do something right it is only by mistake. With the help of

much of the latest research in humor we will draw certain

conclusions that will clarify their differences.

11

In The End of Comedy David Grote explains that the comic hero can have any of the three following personalities: the innocent, the fool and the scoundrel. The innocent ignores the nature of the world but as he is not stupid he can learn (39). One example of the innocent could be Lazaro before he is hit by the blind man. The Lazarillo cannot be said to be a comedy proper, however, there are several comic elements in it. A better example, perhaps, would be David Copperfield, who cannot see through Steerforth. According to Grote, the innocent usually depends economically on his elders. The hero of the bildungsroman belongs to this type.

Grote conceives the fool as the innocent gone wild. There are many examples in the movies. This fool is very far removed from Shakespeare's fool (41), because it is only by mistake that he says or does something clever. However, Grote claims that the most prominent comic hero is the scoundrel, because it is the scoundrel who makes things really happen in a comedy. The innocent can develop complications because he has to and the fool because he doesn't know what he is doing, but the scoundrel tricks for the sake of tricking, because he enjoys the mess he creates around himself. He has very few scrupples and very little respect for society, and for that reason he uses it to his convenience. According to Grote, he could be the lover as in the Restauration drama, but more commonly he is the helper (44-5).

Olivia: There is not slander in an allowed fool; though he do nothing but rail ... (TN I.v.93-4). “dry fool”, “Your fooling grows old”. The fool is allowed evthg, he mks fun of Oliv & Lear allows th fool thgs he dosnt allow Cordelia or Kent, in spite of his mentioning th whip he never uses it. The fool is too familiar w Oliv & criticizes Sir Toby (I.v.150)

En Shx los llamados clown y los no llamados clown (MSND, Macbeth, MAaN, TC, A’s w e w, HIV (but pt 2: under “irregular humorists” 6 are mentioned), R&J This is reminiscent of Lazarillo and its final words: "Pues en este tiempo estaba en mi prosperidad y en la cumbre de toda buena fortuna" (177). ("At this time I was prosperous and at the summit of all good fortune" (103).)

The Scoundrel may be lover or helper, & he may make

his stratagems for his own sake as easily as for the sake

of others. In general, the role the Scoundrel takes depends

on how socially acceptable deviousness is & who the

potential lover is. (Grote 44)

12

Outline: define the essential types of comic heroes used by

Shx. Give examples. Treat Falstaff & Hall briefly, then

cpare Lucio & the Duke. Then talk about some fools, f ex

the mechanicals or Dromios, or Elbow that is already made.

There is the extreme fool like Elbow and the mechanicals &

the smart fool, like Feste or Lear’s fool & the Dromios or

Grumio. Then we have the Scoundrel who needs of an innocent

or an extreme fool. Hamlet is surrounded by fools, and he

plays the fool. Even his mother treats him like a fool. The

Queen pretends Hamlet is a little child who has behaved

badly: “Hamlet you have your father much offended.” “Mother

you have my father much offended”

13

In spite of his—“inky clothes”--Hamlet is always in

the mood for punning. He is a procrastinator who cannot

find the right moment to take revenge, to obey his father’s

spirit’s command. Because he never takes vengeance for his

father’s death, it is only when he is told that he himself

is going to die, and that “The King is to blame”, that he

finds the strength to kill the king. Up to that moment his

vengeance consists in outsmarting his opponents in an

exchange of witticisms or with his retorts to make them

appear foolish. Hamlet, the greatest looser comes always

like a winner in those witty contests, a victory of which

he doesn’t seem to be satisfied when in his Hecuba

monologue (II.2) laments his fondness for words and his

lack of action.

O, vengeance!Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave,That I, the son of a dear father murder'd,Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words,And fall a-cursing, like a very drab, 2/2/540A scullion!

Fie upon't! foh!- About, my brain!

Sin embargo, a pesar de los tintes negros de su humor,

similar al de Hamlet es una de las obras de Shakespeare con

mayor número de héroes cómicos. En la relación de

personajes, cuatro de ellos aparecen calificados con

títulos que aluden a cualidades humorísticas. Así “Pompey,

a clown”, “Elbow, a simple constable”, “Froth, a foolish

gentleman” y “Lucio, a fantastic”, sin embargo el quinto,

Barnardine, considerado por algunos críticos como el

14

comediante de la obra, es denominado “a dissolute condemned

prisoner”. Antes de pasar al estudio de los personajes

Intentaremos esclarecer la terminología que alude a la

cualidad de comicidad. Según Graham Holderness “Clown” es

“the term usually given to a basically comic minor role: he

is not actually a professional `jester´” (9); recordemos

que los sepultureros en Hamlet son referidos como “Two

clowns”. “Simple” entre las varias acepciones que nos da el

Oxford Dictionary está , puede significar “feeble-minded”,

que creo es la que alude a la extrema torpeza de Elbow.

“Foolish” alude a fool, pero Shakespeare reservó el título

de “Fool” para el personaje más clarividente en King Lear,

el que ayuda al héroe trágico a ver, “They told me I was

everything” o “Who can tell me who I am”?, y el Fool sabe

la respuesta “[you are] Lear’s shadow”. Por eso este Froth

o Master Froth—el señorito Froth—es “foolish”, tonto. Y

finalmente Lucio, “a Fantastic”, término que parece aludir

a un personaje con mucha fantasía.

Relación Lucio y el Duke en el archivo algunos de los

heroes comicos de Shx2 y sobre todo en “Filocana 2001” que

es el que envié a la revista.

About FaSTAFF: And in the final scene he is not unmasked,

he will be punished in pt 2, 5.3.47 & fl.. When King Harry

disowns & tells Falstaff:

[Enter the KING and his TRAIN, the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE among them.]

FALSTAFF.

15

God save thy Grace, King Hal! my royal Hal!

PISTOL.The heavens thee guard and keep, most royal imp of fame! 5/5/40

FALSTAFF.God save thee, my sweet boy!

KING HENRY THE FIFTH.My lord chief justice, speak to that vain man.

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.Have you your wits? know you what 'tis you speak?

FALSTAFF.My king! my Jove! I speak to thee, my heart!

KING HENRY THE FIFTH.I know thee not, old man: fall to thy prayers;How ill white hairs become a fool and jester!I have long dream'd of such a kind of man,So surfeit-swell'd, so old, and so profane;But, being awaked, I do despise my dream.Make less thy body hence, and more thy grace; 5/5/50Leave gormandizing; know the grave doth gapeFor thee thrice wider than for other men.-Reply not to me with a fool-born jest:Presume not that I am the thing I was;For God doth know, so shall the world perceive,That I have turn'd away my former self;So will I those that kept me company.When thou dost hear I am as I have been,Approach me, an thou shalt be as thou wast,The tutor and the feeder of my riots: 5/5/60Till then, I banish thee, on pain of death,-As I have done the rest of my misleaders,-Not to come near our person by ten mile.For competence of life I will allow you,That lack of means enforce you not to evil:And, as we hear you do reform yourselves,We will, according to your strength and qualities,Give you advancement.- Be it your charge, my lord,To see perform'd the tenour of our word.-Set on. [Exeunt KING and his TRAIN.] 5/5/70

Parallelism & Oppositions in Falstaf-Prince Hal & Lucio-

Duke Vincentio. The Relation Duke & Lucio in MFM & its

parallelism with Prince Hal & Falstaff.

16

En cuanto a los héroes cómicos como ya apuntamos al

hablar de los personajes, hay gran variedad de ellos: el

cascarrabias o hombre de carácter violento (the Grouch) que

es además pícaro (Scoundrel), la fierecilla (the Shrew), el

astuto criado (una de las personalidades que puede adoptar

el scoundrel), el payaso (clown, fool), el pretendiente

viejo, el pedante. Estos dos últimos están sólo apuntados,

pero que podrían haber tenido más resalte. Shakespeare, con

tantos otros elementos cómicos a su alcance, no necesitó

sacar partido de éstos, que se convertirán en importantes

elementos cómicos en las obras de otros autores de la

Restauración y posteriores.

TITANIA.I pray thee, gentle mortal, sing again:Mine ear is much enamour'd of thy note;So is mine eye enthralled to thy shape;And thy fair virtue's force perforce doth move me,On the first view, to say, to swear, I love thee.

BOTTOM.Methinks, mistress, you should have little reason for that: 3/1/120and yet, to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together now-a-days;- the more the pity that some honest neighbours will not make them friends. Nay, I can gleek upon occasion.

TITANIA.Thou are as wise as thou art beautiful.

BOTTOM.Not so, neither: but if I had wit enough to get out of this wood, I have enough to serve mine own turn.

BOTTOM.Masters, you ought to consider with yourselves: to bring in,- God shield us!- a lion among ladies is a most dreadful thing; for there is not a more fearful wild-fowl than your lion living; and we ought to look to't.

SNOUT.Therefore another prologue must tell he is not a lion.

17

BOTTOM.Masters, you ought to consider with yourselves: to bring

in,- God shield us!- a lion among ladies is a most dreadful thing; for there is not a more fearful wild-fowl than your lion living; and we ought to look to't.

SNOUT.Therefore another prologue must tell he is not a lion.

BOTTOM.Nay, you must name his name, and half his face must be seen through the lion's neck; and he himself must speak through, 3/1/30saying thus, or to the same defect,- "Ladies,"- or, "Fair ladies,- I would wish you,"- or, "I would request you,"- or "I would entreat you,- not to fear, not to tremble: my life for yours. If you think I come hither as a lion, it were pity of my life: no, I am no such thing; I am a man as other men are:"- and there, indeed, let him name his name, and tell them plainly he is Snug the joiner.

TITANIA.I pray thee, gentle mortal, sing again:Mine ear is much enamour'd of thy note;So is mine eye enthralled to thy shape;And thy fair virtue's force perforce doth move me,On the first view, to say, to swear, I love thee.

BOTTOM.Methinks, mistress, you should have little reason for that: 3/1/120and yet, to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together now-a-days;- the more the pity that some honest neighbours will not make them friends. Nay, I can gleek upon occasion.

TITANIA.Thou are as wise as thou art beautiful.

BOTTOM.Not so, neither: but if I had wit enough to get out of this wood, I have enough to serve mine own turn.

He will not fight (“He may not be able to defend himself”),

“but he is never at a loss for words” ( Charney 64).

(“The natural fool is the archaic victim who diverts the

wrath of the gods fr th anointed figure of the king”

(Sypher 39)

18

He is reviled, beaten, and stricken; but he has the

privilege of vilifying the Prosperous Man; he is free to

humble the Exalted by mockery. The fool saves the hero from

the awful sin of pride (hubris) (Sypher 39)

And then there is another kind of fool, the extremely dumb,

the dummy. The extremely foolish, an unbelievable

character, probably created as a concession to the gallery,

to the less cultivated or educated part of the audience.

The second comic type we are going to analyse is the

Fool. Many types of fool can be found in Shx’s plays but I

am going to centre myself on the two extremes of the whole

range /spectrum of fools that Shx designed: the wise or

smart fool and the extremely stupid. The wise fool would be

the one that Sypher calls the natural fool, whose mission

was to divert “the wrath of the gods from the anointed

figure of the king” (Sypher 39), that would help to explain

why in King Lear the fool is the one to be hanged, if we

take Lear’s words in the final scene as applied to his Fool

also, not only to Cordelia. But if in tragedy the Fool was

the scapegoat, the one to suffer the wrath of the gods, he

was also the only one aloud to speak his mind. We have only

to remember that in King Lear, Lear doesn’t accept the

slightest piece of disagreement or criticism. Lear was

capable of disowning his dearest daughter and exiling his

most loyal knight only because they asked to reconsider,

while he accepts the whole truth from the Fool’s mouth and

in spite of his continues threats about the whip, he never

uses it on him, as one critic has pointed out. Contrary to

what happens in tragedy in Shx’s comedy the Fool is never

punished and he is always in good standing with his master

i.

19

as it happens in act I, scene 5 of TN when Olivia defends

Feste, her clown, from Malvolio’s criticism: “There is no

slander in an allowed fool, though he do nothing but rail”

(94-95). This is the smart fool, the one capable to

disarm / put down his opponent with his witticisms.

On the other extreme of the spectrum there was the

extremely foolish, the simpleton. It is difficult to tell

if Shakespeare enjoyed that type of humour or if he created

these silly characters as a concession to the gallery, to

the less cultivated part of the audience. Some of the

punning and witty exchanges in Shakespeare’s plays are so

elaborated that we readers or viewers without the help of

many of those footnotes wouldn’t be able to understand, and

this critic cannot believe that in Shakespeare time the

whole audience caught the meaning of each one of the

hundreds of witticisms Shakespeare used in every play

/understood every single piece of witticism. And I like to

believe that, not only for the sake of relieving tension,

but also because Shakespeare took into account every

member of his audience and tried to please or to give

something to laugh about to each one of them. That would

explain why he retorts to that kind of universal humour

once and again. Shakespeare used many of these simpletons

especially in his comedies, and of those I am going to

focus on the mechanicals in MSND, described by Philostrate

as “Hard-handed men that work in Athens here / Which never

laboured in their minds till now” (V.i.72-73). The humour

of this type of characters relies mainly on the use of

malapropisms. So for Bottom a lion is a wild-fowl, or he

chooses to say “obscenely” (I.2.100) when “seemly” would be

a more proper word, and we should take into account /

mention also in this very scene, the mechanicals’ (stupid)

idea that the audience would believe them to be the roles

they are playing of. As for ex. Bottom’s request that

20

Snug the joiner tell the audience he is really a man and

not a lion in order not to make the ladies afraid (MSND

3.1.38-43), or their confusion of the senses, especially on

Bottom’s scriptural parody, on awakening after what he

believes it was a dream:

Theeye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen,man's hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceive,nor his heart to report, what my dream was! (IV.1.208-211)

However Bottom is not always stupid, he sounds pretty alert

/down to earth / smart when after hearing Titania’s

flatteries addressed to him, once she has been bewitched by

Oberon, he answers (quote): (3.1.135-39):

Methinks, mistress, you should have little reason for that: 3/1/120and yet, to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together now-a-days;- the more the pity that some honest neighbours will not make them friends. Nay, I can gleek upon occasion.

Some of the scenes of the Mechanicals have a lot

potential for humour. And with all probability Shx allowed

lots of freedom to his clowns. I assume the clown actor/s

indulged in horse-playing and there was much public

interaction. (Show for example the play within the play in

the Hollywood version of MSND), and the meal in Pet’s house

or talk a little about Elbow’s use of malapropisms, & show

his picture.

According to Graham Holderness in his W Sh: Romeo and

Juliet, that the term clown was usually applied in the

Elizabethan texts to a basically comic minor character not

to the professional jester (9). However in Shx’s plays this

is not always the case, Twelfth Night’s Feste is called

clown and not jester, while Trinculo of The Tempest is

21

called jester, and there is a big difference between both

characters; while Trinculo doubts if Caliban is a fish,

Feste is a very smart fool.

And finally we are left with the third kind of comic

hero used by Shakespeare, the scoundrel. According to David

Grote, “the most prominent major persona of the comic hero”

(44), he is the one who makes things really happen in a

comedy. The scoundrel in order to be requires the existence

of an innocent, of somebody who doesn’t know the nature of

the world / evil. This is very well explained / especially

exemplified by Lázaro himself in that passage in El

Lazarillo in which Lázaro narrates his awakening to the real

nature of the world. Lázaro will be awakened to wordly wisdom

by the blind man's blow on his head against the bull of

stone, as he says:

It seemed to me that, in an instant, I awoke from my simplicity in which I had reposed from childhood. I said to myself, "This man says truly that it behooves me to keep my eyes open, for I am alone and have to think for myself" (14-5).ii (in the original)

At the beginning, Lazaro is innocent (Cf Grote) but

because of his bad experience with the blind man Lázaro turns

into a pícaro, a character endowed with the attributes that

Charney assigns to the comic hero in general:

ii.

22

... unusual alertness [is] demanded of the comic hero. He must, at all costs, be ready for whatever turns up, and not only ready, but also skillful, versatile, ingenious, spontaneous, and improvisatory. (11)

or a scoundrel as defined by Grote "the man who really makes

things happen in the comedy" (44). As a result of the blind

man's teaching, Lázaro's sensitivity will be hardened, but

it would be wrong to consider that there is no room in him

for it. The passages with the squire prove that Lazaro had

feelings. Lazaro begs in the streets in order to feed

himself and his master. In spite of this, he wasn't the one

to leave his master but the squire who abandoned Lazaro for

fear of his own creditors. The blind man could fool Lázaro

because he once or perhaps twice while this is still

innocent. But Lázaro will try to gain wisdom after the

first and extremely painful practical joke of the blind man

and especially after his advice: “Necio, aprende, que el

mozo del ciego un punto ha de saber más que el diablo”, as

he observes: “Verdad dice éste, que me cumple avivar el ojo

y avisar, pues solo soy, y pensar como me sepa valer”

(Blecua 96).

23

However this is not exactly the case in Shakespeare’s comedies. Among his characters

we find scoundrels, who in most of the cases happen to be just / only practical jokers

will need of a fool or an innocent, as for ex. Autolycus and the shepherds in The

Winter’s Tale or Puck and the mechanicals or Oberon and Titania. But these characters

we are calling scoundrels and in most cases they are only practical jokers.

Charney claims that the villain, usually associated with evil, the subject of tragedy,

is an anomalous type in comedy. "At the end, he is either reconciled to the new society of

the young and pure in heart (who marry or are about to marry), or is expelled from it ..."

(127). Charney gives two examples, Egeus in Midsummer Night's Dream and Autolycus in

The Winter's Tale. However, Charney seems to contradict this assumption with later

statements. In them Charney assures that comedy is cruel "because it takes a position apart

from morality and accepted standards," that "morality is ... a middle-class luxury" (171),

and that "[c]omic heroes tend to fight dirty" as "they generally ignore abstract questions of

moral truth" (171). What has happened to the "young and pure in heart"? Charney also

believes that "Since he has no stake in society, he has absolutely nothing to lose, and he

can therefore gives his imagination free rein." (62) Then there are other characters who

are usually outside society like Autolycus in The Winter’s Tale and those who have

nothing to lose like Pet, a class of his own, who doesn’t have a fool of his own, and

ends up being fooled by Kate. Kate Petruchied or Pet Kated as Gremio comments in

(III.2.245). Tranio could be considered a scoundrel, but so could be Oberon, Puck &

Pet. But it is not so sure Tranio wanted to marry Bianca, to leave his master w.o. bride,

but he denies his old master, with the result that Vincentio hadn’t Lucio happened to

appear at that very moment would have been sent to jail & Tranio is not punished. He is

even eating at the table with his masters & is called Senior Tranio by Pet. We could

think that he is not a servant but a tutor, But he is not even high class, because as

Vincentio says he is the son of a sailmaker of Bergamo. Falstaff is also considered by

some critics to be a rogue, because he steals, and he owns his hostess not only drink,

food and board but shirts. And I could mention also Pandare or Tersitis.Classifying

Shakespeare’s Comic Heroes

“Classifying Shakespeare’s Comic Heroes”

Shakespeare drew so many different comic heroes that

to try to classify them would be an impossible task however

for the sake of economy / simplification we can consider

24

most Shx’s comic heroes would fit into any of the three

following groupings, that of the boaster, the fool or the

scoundrel.

According to most critics the greatest among all the

great characters Shakespeare ever drew are Hamlet, Shylock

and Falstaff. As the subject of this essay is the

classification of Shx’s comic heroes, Falstaff is the one

that concerns us at the present time. Falstaff has been

described as an alazon type, a boaster, an impostor. In

“The Meanings of Comedy” Wylie Sypher following Arist’s

reasoning in the chapter of his Ethics dedicated to the

truth, defines comedy as a struggle (agon) in which the

alazon or impostor, who claimed more than his share of the

victory, was brought to confusion by the eiron or ironical

man, who pretended ignorance. (“The alazon is a boaster who

claims more than a share of the … victory”). And this can

be seen in Henry IV, Pt 1, Act 2, sc. 4, 160-265 (190-280)

Show the scene in which he boasts of / about having killed

X number of people.). As we have just seen Falstaff claims

to have been fighting with an ever increasing number of

enemies while Hal pretends not to know anything it. As soon

as Falstaff begins to talk and notices he is listened to he

grows himself up and starts swelling his lies and the two

rogues in buckram suits become eleven.

(as Maurice Charney has pointed out) Falstaff is a comedian

and great talker and “he is never at a loss for words”

(64), because once he realizes everybody knows the truth /

he has been taken in / he pretends he was in the know from

the first moment. Falstaff “always maintains his …

resourcefulness.” “Falstaff is an entertainer and a comic

philosopher, out of place on the field of battle, yet an

indispensable spokesman for … life values” (64)). Because

more than any other Shx’s character Falstaff represents

25

life and today’s values. We have only to remember that

Prince Hal before the battle and on leaving Falstaff tells

him “Thou owest God a death” (v.1.126). According to the

play’s footnotes, “death” here pronounced “debt” that would

explain the beginning of Falstaff’s soliloquy (quote):

“´Tis not due yet” and where he expresses his philosophy

about /on honour. (127-141)(“Can honour heal a leg? No.”

Show the scene).

As a result of the blind man's teaching, Lázaro's

sensitivity will be hardened, but it would be wrong to

consider that there is no room in him for it. The passages

with the squire prove that Lazaro had feelings. Lazaro begs

in the streets in order to feed himself and his master. In

spite of this, he wasn't the one to leave his master but the

squire who abandoned Lazaro for fear of his own creditors.

26