Introduction shakespeare and the Law of Genre

2. Didacticism and the Defence of Comedy
George Whetstone (1578) was not alone in perceiving the presentation of omedies as demanding the correct balance of “vertue intermyxt with vice” whereby evil would not be ‘taught’ but discovered: For by the rewards of the good the good are encouraged in wel doinge: and ith the scowrge of the lewd the lewd are feared from euill attempts: maintayning this my oppinion with Platoes auctority.

This pedagogic imperative seems to rely upon recommending the work of Ancient dramatists and philosophers as they upheld the Ciceronian edict of ‘mirroring man’s life’, of drama as mimetic representation. Comic mimesis was also defended by Harrington who appreciated and promoted the fact that the moral aspect of comedy ensured that “vice [was] scorned, and not embraced,” with Puttenham in agreement that it “tend[ed] altogether to the amendment of men by discipline and example”.

Thomas Lodges’s careful use of Horace conflates the effect of early Roman comedy with the new type of comedy on the late Elizabethan public stage where “a thefe was loth to be seen [at] one [of] there spectacle[s], a coward was neuer present at theyr assemblies, a backbiter abhord that company".Lodge’s premise is to be understood as a well-crafted counter-attack against the anti-theatrical assault upon the London stage, and his Defence of Poetry is anadmirable attempt to assuage the deluge of prejudice which Sidney, amongst others superficially advocated. In An Apology for Poetry, Sidney asks why the Puritanical assault has been so virulent upon the drama and he offers the following speculation: “perchance it is the Comik, whom naughtie Playmakers and Stage-keepers haue iustly made odious”. He goes on to state that this cannot be so as: Comedy is an imitation of the common errors of our life, which [are] epresenteth in the most ridiculous and scorneful sort that may be; so as it is impossible that any beholder can be content to be such as one.

Of course, Sidney as concerned with the “right vse of Comedy”, and as such his argument begins to dismantle the accusation that “Comedies rather teach then reprehend amorous conceits”. He focuses on the neglect of those rules which govern time and unity in structural precepts as “grosse absurdities”.

idney’s condemnation of theatrical practices may focus on what would have been traditionally viewed as matters of generic convention, but his famous reference to the stage as being filled with performances which violate both aesthetic and social principles repays closer scrutiny. Sidney thus accused the early modern stage of producing: either right Tragedies, nor right Comedies; mingling Kings and Clownes, not because the matter so carrieth it, but thrust in Clownes by head and shoulders, to play a part in maiesticall matters, with neither decencie nor discretion: So as neither the admiration and commiseration, nor the right sportfulnes, is by their mungrell Tragy-comedies obtained.

More seems to be revealed about the politics of Sir Philip Sidney than the nature of genre, but it is always telling that such systematic critics disclose more about themselves than the object of their scrutiny. Nevertheless, Sidney was not alone in displaying a complete abhorrence of the generic hybridity fostered by the stage, as it implied the dissolution of other boundaries of both a sexual and political nature.

‘Very tragical mirth’

The ‘comic relief’ afforded by the “mingling of Kings and Clownes” works through a deep and ancient principle in comedy. Historically monarchs relied on the licensed speech of their court jester, or fool, to remind them that they were mortal, that regardless of their sovereign power, they were not divine. In tragedy, the failings of kings who have forgotten, like Lear, that to be truly regal and authoritative is to “see feelingly” (King Lear, IV.vi.148) is magnified by swift juxtapositions between ‘reason’ and ‘madness’, between tragic and comic motifs. In that “most piteous tale of Lear” ‘mongrelisation’ are demonstrated alongside the curious volatility of laughter.

Within these two highly revered tragedies an analysis of the dramatic discourse between fools and their masters, between the subversion of comedy and the authority of tragedy appeals to the very distinction between these two monolithic super-genres. Far from enjoying a total freedom of speech, clowns had to resort to complex

linguistic strategies to disguise their criticisms for fear of punishment. One should note how eager Lear’s Fool is to avoid being “whipp’d” although he does use certain conversational strategies to control or influence the linguistic behaviour of his social superiors. The relative power of his conversational prowess originates in his condition of being a ‘primary knower’,72 as he rarely asks a question that he sincerely wants answered. More like the “schoolmaster” who offers to “teach thee a Speech”, (I.iv.115) Lear’s Fool already knows the answers and his elicitations have the purpose of signalling his intention to joke and to obtain from his interlocutor permission to deliver a punchline. However, the control he exerts is relative, it is based on persuasion and manipulation and therefore requires a fragile maintenance within each conversational turn:

I marvel what kin thou and thy daughters are. They’ll have me whipp’d for

speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d

for holding my peace. I had rather be any kind o’ thing than a fool; and yet I

would not be thee, nuncle; thou hast pared thy wit o’ both sides, and left

nothing i’ th’ middle. (I.iv.182-8)

Here, comedy enters the tragedy without ceremony to demonstrate that the filial disloyalty that the great king is experiencing can be expressed best through the metaphor of poor housekeeping. The domestic and social elements with which comedy is associated - the ‘lower’ stuff of the quotidian universe - is used to intuitively relate to Lear’s confusion over his abrupt loss of social status. The specific status of tragedy as a form of entertainment relies repeatedly on the interactive context of dialogue, where the linguistic tools of comedy – puns, quibbles, and riddles – are all employed in constraining the conversational options left open to the other character in the dialogue. Somewhat surprisingly, the ‘melancholy prince’ Hamlet displays a jocular familiarity with the tonal and verbal ambiguities of comic language and is involved in many diverse instances of humour within his dramatic play-space. There is the exchange of verbal repartee with Polonius of which the following is only an example:

POL: Will you walk out of the air, my lord?

HAM: Into my grave?

POL: Indeed, that’s out of the air.

(II.ii.209-211)

And there is the conflict of comic and tragic tonalities in his response to the whereabouts of the murdered Polonius: In heaven; send thither to see; if your messenger find him not there, seek him I’ the other place yourself. But if, indeed, you find him not within this month, you shall nose him as you go up the stairs into the lobby. (IV.iii.34-8)

There is a darkness here which focuses more sharply on the tragic as the pleasure induced from Hamlet’s antic humour becomes more of a thrusting snort of aggression rather than the free and spontaneous laughter which comedy seeks. As the realisation increases that the ultimate authority in this drama will be tragic, a social commentary on class structure manifests itself. Hamlet may toy with rhetorical sophistry but he stands in opposition to Lear’s Fool. As his social inferior, Lear’s Fool performs cultural negations and symbolic inversions whereas Hamlet’s wit is the mark of hissocial superiority, and his power of mind takes expression in both his attempts to puzzle out the meaning of life and death, and his humorous adroitness.