Citation
Seeing and perceiving

Material Information

Title:
Seeing and perceiving a study of the use of disguised persons and wise fools in Shakespeare
Creator:
Stanley, Emily Brown, 1929- ( Dissertant )
Herbert, T. Walter ( Thesis advisor )
Oras, Ants ( Reviewer )
Conner, Frederick W. ( Reviewer )
Fogel, Stephen F. ( Reviewer )
Bartlett, George R. ( Reviewer )
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1960
Language:
English
Physical Description:
iii, 187, 1 leaves. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Clothing ( jstor )
Comic books ( jstor )
Comic theater ( jstor )
Morality ( jstor )
Sonnets ( jstor )
Theater ( jstor )
Truth ( jstor )
Violas ( jstor )
Wisdom ( jstor )
Women ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- English -- UF
English thesis Ph. D
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
That the disguised person--one whose exterior aspect is misleading— was used in Shakespeare for purposes such as plot structure and for the appeal of deception and verbal irony has been widely recognized. That disguise serves also in ways even more vital to the play's import is the proposal of this present study. The device will be found to have a far wider relevance to the structure of the play than merely as a contrivance to produce a beginning and a conclusion. Disguise will be found to constitute an expression of Shakespeare's characteristic ways of looking at things—at a character or an incident or a concept—both as he shared in the Elizabethan view of nature and as he participated in the development of the more complex vision which puts him in company with Donne and other articulate voices of the seventeenth century. Disguise will appear as Shakespeare's way of expressing, not only in comedy but in more sober contexts, the more Inclusive perspectives observable in the thought and art of his time. Disguise emerges as a mode of oblique dramatic statement, oblique but productive of the economy that is paradoxically the effect of poetic artifice. At its economical best, disguise enlarges the statement of character and becomes a mode of meaning in a play. Specifically, it is one of the ways in which he conveys the proposition that truth may lie not in one of two apparently conspicuously attended to disguise in Shakespeare: Victor Oscar Freeburg in Disguise Plots in Elizabethan Drama (1915); P. V. Kreider in "The Mechanics of Disguise in Shakespeare's Plays" (1934); John W. Draper in "Mistaken Identities in Shakespeare's Comedies" (1934); and John V. Curry in Deception in Elizabethan Comedy (1955). We shall briefly examine the approaches of these earlier treatments both for the purpose of canvassing! the values of Shakespeare's disguise which will not be dwelt upon elsewhere in my study and also for the purpose of suggesting limitations in these viewpoints. This review of scholarship will be directed towards a more exacting definition of my own approach and objects of study.
Thesis:
Thesis -- University of Florida, 1960.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 182-186.
General Note:
Manuscript copy.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
021781646 ( AlephBibNum )
13355488 ( OCLC )
ACX6005 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text













SEEING AND PERCEIVING:

A STUDY OF THE USE OF DISGUISED PERSONS
AND WISE FOOLS IN SHAKESPEARE











By
EMILY BROWN STANLEY


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
June, 1960































Mic 60-5147


STANLEY, Emily Brown. SEEING AND PER-
CEIVING: A STUDY OF THE USE OF
DISGUISED PERSONS AND WISE FOOLS IN
SHAKESPEARE.
The University of Florida, Ph.D., 1960
Language and Literature, general



University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

3 1262 08666 443 9















ACJCIOWLEDGMENTS


To the members of my committee, Professors T. Walter Herbert,

Chairman, Ants Oras, Frederick W. Conner, Stephen F. Fogle, and George

R. Bartlett, I wish to express my sincere thanks. I am especially

grateful to my chairman for his wise and patient counsel.

I am indebted to Maurice Grosser for his phrase "visual pun,"

which I have extended to include the function of disguised characters

such as Rosalind, and to H. B. Parkes for his phrase "the double vision

of the Elizabethans"; I have applied to a different context this con-

cept which he employed in order to define the tension existing between

a rather vague religious and political optimism and the emerging

naturalistic attitude. I am indebted also to Professor Moody Prior

of Northwestern University for stimulating my interest in Shakespeare's

disguises.

To the library staffs of the University of Florida and Yale Uni-

versity my appreciation is due. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude

for the stipends received from the University of Florida which have made

my graduate study possible.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


CHAPTER PAGE

Introduction ................... 1

I Disguise and Elizabethan Costume . . . . 17

II The Elizabethan Double Vision . . . .. 35

III Character Depth Through Disguise. ..... .. . 50

IV Misapprehension and Misconception in Comedies
of Errors .................. 84

V Disguise in a Tragedy of Errors . . . ... 123

VI Disguise and the Shakespearean Perspective. . .154

Bibliography .................. 182














INTRODUCTION


That the disguised person--one whose exterior aspect is mislead-

ing--was used in Shakespeare for purposes such as plot structure and for

the appeal of deception and verbal irony has been widely recognized.

That disguise serves also in ways even more vital to the play's import

is the proposal of this present study. The device will be found to have

a far wider relevance to the structure of the play than merely as a con-

trivance to produce a beginning and a conclusion. Disguise will be

found to constitute an expression of Shakespeare's characteristic ways

of looking at things--at a character or an incident or a concept--both

as he shared in the Elizabethan view of nature and as he participated in

the development of the more complex vision which puts him in company

with Donne and other articulate voices of the seventeenth century. Dis-

guise will appear as Shakespeare's way of expressing, not only in comedy

but in more sober contexts, the more inclusive perspectives observable

in the thought and art of his time. Disguise emerges as a mode of

oblique dramatic statement, oblique but productive of the economy that

is paradoxically the effect of poetic artifice. At its economical best,

disguise enlarges the statement of character and becomes a mode of mean-

ing in a play. Specifically, it is one of the ways in which he conveys

the proposition that truth may lie not in one of two apparently


The word "perspective" in this study is used consistently to
mean a conceptual point of view, a way of observing. More colloquially,
it means a way of looking at things. The word as we use it, however,
does not involve the aspect of a natural object, as it appears to the
eye, but a mental object.














contradictory alternatives but in the consequence of their mutual

dependence.

Whether Shakespeare's disguises reasonably justify these findings

Sis dependent, of course, upon the possibility of Shakespeare's having

had at his disposal these uses of disguise as part of his dramatic

vocabulary and upon the probability that an Elizabethan audience would

have been responsive to the meanings. The special significance of his

masquerading character, which will not be broached directly until Chapter

III, will be there more readily intelligible if we first remind ourselves

of those modes of expression and interpretation current in the Elizabe-

than period--modes through which disguise might naturally arouse a

degree of attention it would not so inevitably elicit from a modern

* audience. This preliminary discussion--the province of Chapters I and

II--will provide for the modern reader the framework in which that

earlier audience could take disguise as a symbol, either representing

some aspect of a character or standing as the epitome of a situation

whose scope may encompass a character's mistakes in judging as well as

his mistakes in perceiving persons and objects. Thus, a justification

for conceiving disguise as the visual statement of a fundamental issue

of a play will be demonstrated by appeal to the thinking of the period:

There is historical precedent for our construing disguise as the vehicle

of a complex statement.

But even before we proceed to the business of Chapters I and II

it will be helpful to examine more closely the ways in which disguise

has already been investigated by the critics who have most directly and













conspicuously attended to disguise in Shakespeare: Victor Oscar Freeburg

in Disguise Plots in Elizabethan Drama (1915);1 P. V. Kreider in "The

Mechanics of Disguise in Shakespeare's Plays" (1934);2 John W. Draper

in "Mistaken Identities in Shakespeare's Comedies" (1934); and John V.

Curry in Deception in Elizabethan Comedy (1955).4 We shall briefly

examine the approaches of these earlier treatments both for the purpose

of canvassing the values of Shakespeare's disguise which will not be

dwelt upon elsewhere in my study and also for the purpose of suggesting

limitations in these viewpoints. This review of scholarship will be

directed towards a more exacting definition of my own approach and

objects of study.

Because so many of the Elizabethan disguises were borrowed from

their Plautine and Italian predecessors, they have been studied in rela-

tion to their sources. Through such an approach Freeburg5 not only

demonstrates the debt of the Elizabethans to their predecessors, but he

also establishes the genuine interest of the English in the disguise

convention. Where disguise was not already supplied in the source


Victor Oscar Freeburg, Disguise Plots in Elizabethan Drama
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1915).
P. V. Kreider, "The Mechanics of Disguise in Shakespeare's
Plays," Shakespeare Association Bulletin, I (1934), 167-180.

3John W. Draper, "Mistaken Identity in Shakespeare's Comedies,"
Revue Anglo-Americ ne, IX (avril, 1934), 289-297.

John V. Curry, Deception in Elizabethan Comedy (Chicago: Loyola
University Press, 1955).

5Draper also is concerned with Shakespeare's use of his sources
for disguise situations.













material, it was frequently added by the Elizabethans, indicating the

fondness of the English for the tradition.1 Shakespeare implements plot

with disguise--in King Lear, The Winter's Tale, Much Ado About Nothing,

and Measure for Measure, for example.

Shakespeare's use of his sources, with respect to disguise, has

served as one of Freeburg's points of departure for examining the

dramatist's technique. In comparison to its source (The Taming of A

Shrew) Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew provides motivation for dis-

guise. In A Shrew Aurelius, a nobleman in love with Philema, masquerades

as a son of a rich merchant, but, as Freeburg rightly observes, there

seems to be no reason for assuming this disguise, nor for the servant's

assuming a pose as his master.2 My purpose in later chapters is not to

enumerate these many changes of or additions to the sources. However,

mention will be made of Shakespeare's addition of disguise to KingLear

and the de-emphasis of the twin Sebastian in Twelfth Night inasmuch as

both the addition and the de-emphasis are means of focusing attention

upon aspects of the character of Lear and Viola which it is my purpose

to discuss.

A conspicuous aspect of disguise is deception. Shakespeare's

disguises have been approached through the perspective of Elizabethan

fondness for deception; Curry maintains its strong appeal for the


Whether borrowed or added, "disguise occurs with important
dramatic function in more than two hundred extant plays," according to
Freeburg, p. 1. Twenty-five of Shakespeare's plays employ disguise.

21bid., p. 180.













Elizabethan audience. Disguise is thus set into a framework of the

trickery and duplicity which flourished from Roister Doister and Gammer

Gurton's Needle to the more verbal, sophisticated level of Jonsonian

intrigue and counter-intrigue. The imposter, duper, and rogue were con-

tinual cIjects of delight to the dramatist and theater-goer, and the

disguised character was an important member of this assemblage. Curry

pursues his interest in disguise as an agent of deception by extensively

cataloguing the variety of motives behind the use of disguise in Eliza-

bethan comedy; there are: female pages; boys, who for differing reasons

dress as women; spies; lovers in disguise; and rogues in multi-disguise.

Disguise follows its dramatic tradition in functioning primarily

as the basic situation for the plot, and it has attracted critical at-

tention largely because of this. The most complete study, the early

twentieth century work of Freeburg, is concerned mainly with Shakes-

peare's varied techniques of initiating end resolving action through

the use of disguise. Disguise proved to be a device which offered the

Elizabethan dramatist an inexhaustible source of situations for plot

structure. Capable of unlimited variation and ingenious manipulation,

the convention was fully exploited, a fact attested to by the long lists

of disguise types and plots compiled in the study of Freeburg and also

in that of Curry.

Shakespeare's departure from the traditional use as simply the

complicator of a comic plot is evident. Only in his early plays does

Shakespeare use disguise extensively for plot structure.

Traditionally, disguise, and mistaken identity generally, was most














widely employed for comic plot structure. Especially in Plautus the

motif of mistaken identity, based on identical twins and disguise, is

extensively drawn upon and becomes a part of the developing comic tradi-

tion in Renaissance drama. A study of Shakespeare's sources reveals

that the early comedies, The Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Lost,

The Two Gentlemen of Verona, and A Midsummer Night's Dream all employ

more instances of mistaken identity than any knorn sources of the plays
1
in question. When Shakespeare is interested in farce and mere fortu-

itous coincidence, he throws himself into it completely, actually doubling

the use of mistaken identity in The Comedy of Errors over Plautus's use,

clearly casting aside all thought of convincing realism or meaning.

The use of mistaken twins as the backbone of comedy has limited

dramatic value even though it generates a variety of situations. Inci-

dent is dominant and the necessary emphasis on a confused situation is a

deterrent to character analysis and development. The mistakes are fortu-

itous; disguise is not intentional. In a rapidly moving plot characters

do not have time to reflect; they are primarily actors, not thinkers.

Individuality must be minimized to achieve the pawn-like character who

is largely acted upon by circumstance. Apart from The Comedy of Errors

Shakespeare's interests lie more in characterization--individualized

choices and responses to circumstance--and in thematic implications of

the action. By the time of Twelfth Night, where disguise is as necessary

to the over-all structural framework as in The Comedy of Errors, this


'Draper, p. 291.













convention undergoes much change, serving heightened dramatic interests,

as we shall see in Chapter IV.

Further insight into Shakespeare's use of disguise is provided by

other considerations of what Shakespeare for the greater part of his

career refrains from doing--what he left to his fellow dramatists, who

in many ways elaborated the convention of disguise as it had appeared

in earlier drama. Shakespeare does not experiment with the many poss-

ible ingenious adaptations of disguise, and he does not use it for a

merely theatrically effective surprise, at the end of a play. Shake-

speare is less interested in its novelty and theatricality than in its

functionally dramatic and poetic values.

Freeburg analyzes the many adaptations and new uses of disguise

as the convention passed through the hands of the early dramatists and

was "improved" upon by later playwrights. Occasionally the device was

used to parody earlier uses. Heywood, Freeburg judges, perhaps meant

to burlesque female page disguises in his Four Prentices of London.1 The

heroine assumes the disguise of a page, thereby serving her lover incog-

nito. The situation develops into a reduction ad absurdum because the

page had allegedly been her lover's uedfellow for a year, without his

discovering her identity or sexI

The multi-disguise was obviously fashionable, reaching its

prominence in the Jacobean drama after Shakespeare.2 A single character


IFreeburg, p. 67.
2 id., p. 124.







8





assumes many different disguises during the action of the play. In the

subplot of Jonson's Every Man in His Humour, it will be remembered,

Brainwood dissembles as (1) an old soldier, (2) Justice Clement's man,

and (3) a City Sergeant. The repeated and rapid changes of costume

keep the action shifting constantly and developing episodically. The

multi-disguise had little dramatic value; as William Lawrence, after

studying examples of the multi-disguise, has concluded: "At best, the

type is theatrically effective, never dramatically convincing." Shake-

speare was evidently interested in this sort of theatrical spectacle

only in one bitter sequence in King Lear.

What Freeburg labels "retro-disguise" becomes an amusing varia-

tion on an old theme. Retro-disguise involves a second disguise; thus

ironically the correct sex of the dissimulator is righted. That is, a

woman disguised as a man may assume a second, supposedly real disguise,

as a woman. Heywood in The Wise Woman of Hogsdon disguised his heroine

Luce as a page and then allowed some deceived person, the Wise Woman of

Hogsdon, to retro-disguise her as a lady, thereby achieving a double

complication. The retro-disguise leads up to a marriage supposedly farci-

cal, but eventually real. Shakespeare, attentive to characterization and

theme, bypasses the temptations of this type of ingenuity.

Shakespeare also bypasses an exclusively English contribution to

the disguise convention: the surprise disguise, such as Jonson's Epicene

depends upon. In the conventional disguise plot the character who was


1William J. Lawrence, Pre-Restoration Stage Studies (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1927), p. 292.













to disguise himself always told the audience of his intention, follow-

ing the tradition established by Aristophanes' Acharnians.1 About to

assume a distedise, Dicaeopolis asks of the chorus: "Permit me, there-

fore, before I speak to dress in the manner most likely to draw pity."2

And shortly thereafter he discusses with Euripides all the details of

his disguise. Similarly, in Shakespeare's drama, either by monologue

or discussion with a confidant, the intention and nature of the disguise

is revealed, enabling the audience to recognize the pretender immedi-

ately upon his appearance.3

Since we will concentrate in this study upon examining Shake-

speare's disguises for what they reveal to the audience about character

or situation, it is important to note that Shakespeare always made sure

his audience was aware of any masquerading. Contrary to the practice of

his fellow dramatists, it is never the purpose of a Shakespeare disguise

to mystify or deceive and later surprise the audience. This is the main

point of P. V. Kreider's examination of Shakespeare's disguises to which

we have earlier alluded: the audience is always in on the pose.

Novelty is again the keynote of disguise plays whose interest

grows out of the fact that characters who imagine themselves or other

characters to be disguised, are not. In Tomkis's Albumazar a farmer,

Trincalo, imagines himself in disguise though there has been no change


Freeburg, p. 12.

2Aristophanes, Acharnians, Aristophanes: The Eleven Comedies, ed.
Jean de Bosschere (New York: Horace Liveright, 1928), p. 105.

3Freeburg, p. 12.


- -













of appearance. He has been made to believe he has been magically trans-

formed. "I am," he says, choicelyy neate in my clothes, valiant, and

extreme witty." (II.1) He is a sort of Malvolio, without a change of

costume, who regards himself an attractive lover and acts in accord with

the delusion. In Volpone Lady Would-Be sees her husband with a young

man and is quick to imagine that the companion is a courtesan disguised.

Suspicion of disguise where there is none amounts almost to burlesque in

Fletcher's Honest Men's Fortune.2

As the convention grows older, as it becomes employed with increas-

ing ingenuity, disguise also is used more incidentally and without much

dramaturgic skill, as in Middleton and Dekker's Honest Whore (Part I),

where George, a servant, masquerades as his master, Candido, to surprise

his employer as he returns home. (I.vii)3

Another interest of Freeburg, which though it conspicuously be-

longs to Shakespeare, will not be a part of this present study, is the

value of disguise foi verbal irony. Disguise is a valuable appropria-

tion for a dramatist such as Shakespeare who is alive to the impact of

irony. The dialogue of a disguised person is like that of a sane man

who simulates incoherency, or of a wise man pretending foolishness--or

that of any pretender--it creates an atmosphere of dramatic tension and


iThomas Tomkis, Albumazar: A Comedy (1615), ed. Hugh G. Dick
(University of California Publications in English, Vol. 13; Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1944), p. 90.

2This has been noticed by Freeburg, p. 97.

3Thomas Middleton and Thomas Dekker, Honest Whore (1604), II,
Dekker's Dramatic Works, (London: John Pearson, 1873), 47 ff.













theatrically effective double meaning. This tension within the play is,

of course, satisfying to the audience. It is appealing to the theater-

goer to have knowledge about the disguised character that is superior to

the awareness of the deluded characters.

Shakespeare takes excellent advantage of disguise for subtle di-

alogue--double meanings and veiled allusions--throughout his disguise

plays. In The Two Gentlemen of Verona Julia, as a page, tells Silvia

that she knows Julia almost as well as herself. Scenes in which the

disguised heroine appears with her beloved are fruitful grounds for

irony. Viola tells the Duke that she will never love any woman, that,

in fact, she will never love anybody but her master. She explains

further:

My father had a daughter lov'd a man,
As it might be, perhaps, were I a woman,
I should your lordship.
(Twelfth Night. II.iv.110-112)1

Rosalind, in disguise, also indulges in this sport. Reviving from a

swoon, she insists it was counterfeited: Oliver then suggests, "Well

then, take a good heart and counterfeit to be a man." Rosalind explains

"So I do. But, i'faith, Ishould have been a woman by right." (As You

Like It. IV.iii.174-177) Here, irony depends upon ambiguous language

used by the character ignorant of the true situation as well as that

used with knowledge and intent by the disguised character, Rosalind.


1William Allan Neilson and Charles Jarvis Hill (eds.), The
Complete Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare (Cambridge: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1942). All subsequent citations from Shakespeare will
be from this text.













Previous studies of disguise, while they have contributed much,

have their limitations and, in at least one point, have propagated false

judgments. A limitation of Freeburg, and to a lesser degree his follow-

er, Curry, inheres in his over-admiration of the well-constructed,

Aristotelian plot. Evaluating the function of disguise in Shakespeare's

plays, Freeburg has applied the touchstone of the model Aristotelian

plot with its cohesive beginning, middle, and end. Disguise, of course,

is traditionally associated with a comic confusion of identity, through

which the plot is first set in motion and eventually brought to rest;

and it functions commendably, according to Freeburg, when it is itself

the means of resolving the tension it initially creates and when the

dramatist honestly lets his audience in on the disguise trick.

Because they regard disguise primarily as the backbone of plot

and as an agent of comedy, Freeburg and Curry misconstrue its effect in

a play which has serious, even tragic, overtones. Both critics admire

what they consider to be the role of disguise, structurally, in rescuing

a play from a tragic ending. Curry concludes that Portia's disguise .in

The Merchant of Venice terminates the tragic plot and initiates the

comedy in whose spirit the play finally restse. And in Measure for

Measure Shakespeare adds disguise to his source in order to bring "tragic

complications to a happy resolution."2 If this is the function of dis-

guise in these plays, it is ineffectual. These attitudes, for one thing,


1Curry, p. 149.

Freeburg, p. 168.













depend upon too clear-cut an antithesis between tragedy and comedy in

these plays; each of the plays actually concludes vith nagging ambivalence.

Freeburg partially recognizes the value of disguise as an economi-

cal device for the "compression" of characters. By this he means that

disguise brings together the fictitious and the real: it provides one

character for those deluded characters in the play and yet another

character for the enlightened audience. Such compression occurs in

every instance of disguise. Or, he continues, disguise may be the means

of reducing the number of characters found in a narrative source which

contained no disguise. Thus Chapman in Widow's Tears economically re-

constructed his source, which contained a dead husband, a widow, and a

soldier lover, by creating a soldier lover who was actually the husband--
1
supposedly dead--in disguise. The dramatic thrift involved, in any

event, has merely to do with a coalescence of the real and the fictitious

personalities, with the resultant reduction of quantities of characters.

He stops short of noticing other dramatic effects--mainly the enlarged

statement of character, allowed through his assumption of a disguise--

which are available to the hand of a competent playwright and which will

be discussed in Chapter III.

There is a particularly common attitude towards Shakespeare's

interest in disguise that needs rectifying. Shakespeare is wrongly

thought of as having interest in disguise only during the relatively

early stages of his dramatic development. This is a conclusion easily

drawn by a critic who notices disguise primarily when it is the basic


bid., p. 15.













plot for a comedy of situation and overlooks its relationship to

character and theme.

Draper, like Freeburg and Curry, so emphasizes the role of disguise

for structural comic purposes. John James Munro, to whom Draper refers,

had gone so far as to label the early period of Shakespearean comedy as

the "M. I. Group"--the mistaken identity group--overlooking the assimila-

tion of this convention into later plays. Draper does not agree to so

pointed a disregard for the dramatist's later use of disguise--"the de-

vice still interests Shakespeare," he concedes--but he does agree with

Munro that Shakespeare's mature works which examine a character's mis-

understanding, not his misapprehension, have outgrown the use of dis-

guise.1 Draper tests the value of disguise in terms of its vraisemblance

and thus concludes that in the mature comedies, which may contain less

disguise than the early plans (such as The Comedy of Errors, Love's

Labour's Lost, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, and A Midsummer Night's

Dream), Shakespeare "regularly strives to give it [mistaken identity]

more realism."2 As Shakespeare becomes more interested in character,

mistaken identity "was superseded in Shakespeare's art by subtler forms

of dramatic irony, in which not the mere identity, but the acts and par-

ticularly the motives, feelings, or point of view, of a given charac-

ter were misunderstood by one or more of his companions."3


1
Draper, p. 292.

2Ibid.

3bid.., p. 296.













It is to be granted, of course, that errors in understanding are

central in Shakespeare's mature interest. However, Draper fails to per-

ceive that misconception is dramatically stated at least partly through

a subtle and ironic relationship with misapprehension (errors instigated

by disguise). With his primary interest in vraisemblance, Draper judges

that the errors of misunderstanding "need no obvious properties such as

night and masks and dressing in disguise to make them possible."l

This is so. Disguise is not needed to make misunderstanding probable.

Gloucester misunderstood Edgar when Edgar was not in disguise, but the

disguising of Edgar provided dramatic opportunities which far transcended

the mere physical possibility that a father could see his son and not

know him, as witness the fact that for a long time it was a blind

Gloucester who was in company with his disguised son.

This discussion of Draper's bias leads to a major contention of

my own study: disguise in Shakespeare's mature plays sometimes restates,

as an emblem does, what the play otherwise says about human misconcep-

tions. Disguise, when it is thus employed, involves ways of looking at

things that are typically Elizabethan. It is my intention to refer dis-

guise not only to the emblem but to a general background of those sig-

nificant outward forms which would have had meaning for the Elizabethan,

steeped as he was in analogical patterns of thought.

Shakespeare goes beyond the use of disguise for its value in set-

ting up a comedy of situation, for the fascination inherent in deception,


'Ibid.








_______













or for irony in language, to focus some fundamental issue of the play.

He also makes it yield to demands of characterization. Through dis-

guise dramatic revelation is achieved.

A second major contention of this study is, accordingly, that

disguine--a device which conceals a character from others in the play--

is frequently a medium for revealing character to the audience. Dis-

guise allows a disclosure of new facets or ambiguous qualities of char-

acter which the ordinary demands of situation render difficult to reveal.

As a means of revealing character, disguise will also be placed

in its proper context with other forms of exposition which are used for

characterization: the soliloquy, the aside, hallucination, dreams, and

so forth. Thereby Shakespeare's disguises can be studied against his

development of these techniques of exposition.

Disguise belongs to still another context. Disguise is a most

obvious statement of that discrepancy between appearance and reality

which has long provided the basic conflict necessary to a dramatic situ-

ation--ever since Oedipus set out to cleanse his city of its evil.

Shakespeare is uncommonly concerned with the various forms expressing

the relationship between the apparent and the real, and he explores

these forms from diverse angles, one of which is through a form uniting

the true and the false--disguise. Disguise, then, will be examined as

one of numerous false forms which include, for example, hallucinations,

non sequiturs, wise fools, dissimulated love.












CHAPTER I


DISGUISE AND ELIZABETHAN COSTUME

"Apparel oft proclaims the man." (Hamlet I.iii.72)

If disguise is to be regarded as a means of exposition for

characterization and thematic statement--as the Introduction has

proposed--then one might ask whether this extra burden of meaning would

have been felt by an actual Elizabethan audience as well as by the modern

interpreter with his passion for symbols and levels of meaning. Would

the Elizabethen have been sufficiently attentive and responsive to dis-

guises? In order to state fully the function of disguise in Shakespeare's

plays, it is necessary to refer not only to the contexts provided by the

plays themselves, but also to the then current attitudes towards cloth.

ing and costume in general and towards disguise in drama in particular.

These attitudes, which will now be examined, will begin to answer the

question of what sort of attention and response disguise would elicit

from the Elizabethan theater-goer.

Evidence pointing to the Elizabethan's thoughtful consideration

of clothing, costume, and disguise is abundant. The contemporary in-

terest in fashions, the religious and moral concern with superficial

appearances and inappropriate dress, and the dramatic tradition of

symbolic costumes, colors, and materials all combine to testify that

clothing evoked serious deliberation.

It is common knowledge, even to one who is only casually acquainted

with Elizabethan England, that extravagance in clothing was widespread


17



_ _ _ __ -j













and, of course, conspicuous. The ruff, for example, is frequently used

to typify the dress of the period. Extravagant clothing was not only on

constant display, but it aroused serious discussion.

Moralists of all sorts tirelessly denounced the Growing worldli-

ness of London men and women, whose preoccupation with mere adornment,

such as the ruff, was regarded as morally weakening and conducive to

more active forms of sinfulness. Philip Stubbes, in his exhaustive

summary of current vices--gluttony, usury, whoredom, and covetousness--

included pride ir apparel. Typical of his attitude was his reproof of

such superfluities as "great ruffes and supportasies" which, against

nature, were bulwarked by "deuils liquore"--starchl

The deuil, as he in the fulnes of his malice, first
inuented these great ruffes, so hath hee now found out
also two great states to beare up and maintain that
his kingdome of great ruffes . .2

Stubbes proceeded, then, to define and denounce these statess": the

starch and the wiring that undergirded the ostentatious ruff.

It has been observed that clothing was of particular concern in

Shakespeare's day because a degree of ostentation incongruous to one's

position was against the sumptuary laws, which prescribed what dress was

appropriate to one's "degree."3 These laws were evidently not kept

strictly enough.


'Phillip Stubbes. Anatomie of the Abuses in England, 1583, ed.
Frederick J. Furnivall (London: N Trubner and Co., 1877-79), I, 70.

2Tbid., p. 52.

3Jack E. Teagarten, "Reaction to the Professional Actor in Eliza-
bethan London" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of English, Uni-
versity of Florida, 1957), p. 33.













How often hath her Majestie with the grave advise of her
honorable Councell, sette down the limits of apparel to
every degree, and how soone again hath the pride of our
harts overflowed the chanel?1

Jack Teagarten, in defining the general Elizabethan feeling against in-

appropriate dress, also cites Stubbes in his Anatomy of Abuses:

. there is such a confuse mingle mangle of apparel
in Ailgna, and such preposterous excess thereof, as
every one is permitted to flaunt it out on what apparell
he lust himself, or can get by anie kind of means.

Clothing, according to the lay moralists, had to be congruent not

only to a person's social position but also to his sex. Clothes that fal-

sified one's nature were condemned at least as heartily as those which

falsified one's status socially.

The disguise of the female as a male, including any act of simulat-

ing male attire, was regarded as a falsification of nature. It was con-

demned on several accounts: in the first place, for its artificiality or

dishonesty. Hic Mulier: Or, the Man-Woman lashed out at the "modern"

woman who "will give her honestie to haue her upper parts put into a

French doublet."3 Unconfined to places of iniquitous entertainment, this

sort of dissembling was alarming also for its ubiquity. The moralist

directed his readers to '"ook if this very last edition of disguise . .

this bayt which the Diuel hath layd to catch the soules of wanton women,


1
Stephen Gosson, Schoole of Abuse, 1579, P. 39, as cited in
Teagarten, p. 33.

2Stubbes, p. 34, as cited in Teagarten, p. 33.

3Hic Mulier: Or, the Man-Woman, 1620, Sig B2, as cited in Louis
B. Wright, Middle Class Culture in Elizabethan England (Chapel Hill, N.C.:
The University of North Carolina Press, 1935), p. 494.













be not as frequent in the demy-Palaces of Burgars and Citizens, an it is

either as Maske, Try-umph, Tilt-yard, or Play-house."l

Another criticism of women who disguised as men is that they cor-

rupted the purity of their sex--they can no longer be regarded as females.

This is another aspect of the general denunciation of clothing that falsi-

fies. Stubbes vituperated in the name of Biblical sanction:

It is written in the 22 of Deuteronomie, that what man
so ever weareth womans apparel is accursed, and what woman
weareth mans apparel is accursed also. Now, whether they
be within the bands and lymits of that curse, let them see
to it themselves. Our Apparel was given us as a signe dis-
tinctive to discern betwixt sex and sex, and therefore one to
were the Apparel of another sex is to participate with the
kinde. Wherefore these Women may not improperly be called
IHermaphroiti, that is, Monsters of bothe kindes, half women,
half men.

The attitude expressed by Stubbes is typical of a medieval (and

to a lesser extent, Elizabethan) interpretation of the relationship

between form and the contents it embodies. The medieval belief in form

as directly revelatory of content (essence) persisted. The same atti-

tude that proclaimed the heart-shaped digitalis leaf to be remedial in

heart disease, judged the "real" sex of an individual in terms of his

clothing. Similarly, the outward deformation of Shakespeare's Richard

III spoke to Elizabethans of intrinsic mental and moral disproportion.

To cite just one other example of this mode of thinking, the emblem

frequently depended for its meaning upon the viewer's allying form and

content in this way. One of Wither's emblems presented spiritual


id., Sig Cl, as cited in Wright, p. 495.

2Stubbes, p. 73.














deformity by means of a woman whose face is hideous.1

This identification of intrinsic qualities with form is, of

course, nothing new. Referred to most generally as a means of repre-

sentation in art, it is a mode of stating that has been relied upon in

classical periods and one that has recurred down to the present day.

Form is taken as a representation of inner qualities--of content, if

you will--whether that form is, for example, the statue of a Greek

athlete--whose beauty of body bespoke a beautiful soul--or an even

modern painting in which the relaxed position of a figure suggests

repose of spirit. This tendency to impute the characteristics of form

into content is not foreign to us today. But what makes it difficult

for us genuinely to participate in the attitude of the Elizabethan to-

wards clothes, and towards transvestism particularly, is the tone--

foreign to us--of high moral seriousness, which accompanied their ob-

servations about thp appropriateness of one's costume. Clothes in

Elizabethan England cannot be regarded as the relatively arbitrary and

merely conventionalized garb that is associated with the male, or with

the female.

Transvestism as it occurred in Elizabethan drama was open to the

general arguments against disguising one's sex, but it incurred the

,special attention and indignation of the moralists. It might be sup-

posed that because the actor dissembled his appearance only within the


'George Wither, A Collection of Emblemes, Ancient and Moderne. .
(London: Printed by A. M. for John Grismond, 1635), p. 229.













framework of a fictitious situation--a play--he would have been at

least somewhat spared the usual censure. But this was not so.

Those writers attending to the special situation of the actor who

was guilty of transvestism had two objects for their attack: (1) men

who either enacted female parts (and dressed accordingly) or who dis-

guised as women during the action of the play, and (2) the female char-

acters (actually represented by male actors) who disguised as males dur-

ing the action of the play.

According to Theodore Komisarjevsky, the objection of the Puritans

vas more to the actors indicated in the latter category, to the actor

impersonating the female character--as in the Travesti plays--than to

the male character who disguises as a female.2 The part of the female

character in Elizabethan drama was, of course, always assumed by a male

character; and that was reprehensible enough. But for this supposedly

female character to put on the disguise of a male within the action of


iElbert Thompson calls attention to the fact that William Perkin's
Cases of Conscience, 1595, objected to the assignment of women's parts to
men. Elbert N. S. Thompson, The Controversy Between the Puritans and the
Stge ("Yale Studies in English," Vol. XX; New York: Henry Iblt and Co.,
1903, p. 106. Also, "The Third Action" of Stephen Gosson's Plays Con-
futed in Five Actions and A Shorte Treatise by "I.G." deplored the ap-
propriateness of female attire by the male. Teagarten, p. 44. While it
is not my intention to canvass the effect of attitudes against disguise
in the drama of the period, one example--outside of Shakespeare--which
has been noted by Komisarjevsky will be mentioned. In Jonson's comedy
Bartholomew Fair Puritanical objection to transvestism is made by a charac-
ter whom the context of the play ridicules. Puritan Zeal-of-the-Land Busy
rages at Leatherhead's puppet-show: "Yes, and my main argument against you
is, that you are an abomination; for the male among you putteth on the ap-
parel of the female and the female of the male." (V.iii) Komisarjevsky,
p. 86.

2Theodore Komisarjevsky, The Costume of the Theater (London:
Geoffrey Bles, 1931), p. 86.













the play doubled the wrong. The abomination in this event would seem

to be doubled, Komisarjevsky observes, inasmuch as the characters of the

young girls were acted by men in the first place. The Puritanical atti-

tude described here is absurd, but the fact that the point was seriously

made indicates the moral importance attached to appropriate clothing.

The criticism of transvestism in drama usually either took the

approach of procl, ming the authority that condemned disguise or else

described the immoral effects of the practice.

The use of Biblical authority such as Stubbes relied upon in his

diatribe against transvestism in general is characteristic of the bias

of other writers and reflects a long warfare between drama and the

Christian church.

Elizabethan disapproval of disguising was an aspect of the yecur-

rent animosity towards play-making, notable since the ante-Nicene church.

Declaimers against actors in general and the disguising of the sexes in

particular--John Northbrook, "I.G.", William Prynne, and others--found

their support in the early church fathers. Thompson has noted that

Tatian and Tertullian, representative second century spokesmen in this

controversy, denounced the actor as a dissembler, as a man in disguise

whether or not he was disguised within the framework of the play. The

ancient argument against play-making as lying was implicit. Tertullian

asserted in De Spectaculis--a second century Anatomie of Abuses for Rome--

that "if it is prohibited under all circumstances to wear woman's gar-

ments, then surely the 'vileness . which the buffon in woman's













clothes exhibits' is an utter abomination."l

Both the extent and the intense seriousness of the religious

censure of disguise are suggested in the Cambridge arguments concern-

ing plays.

Documents published in 1599, covering a series of debates occur-
2
ring from 1951-1593, re-echo London sentiment against players and in-

cluded a controversy over the apparel of the players. William Gager,

the Latin dramatist, clashed repeatedly with John Rainoldes, learned

theologian, in a verbal battle that, according to Thompson, must have

spread through much of the country.3

Like the moralist Stubbes, Rainoldes depended heavily upon

Mosaic law, which forbade the wearing of garments of the opposite sex.

Upon such authority Rainoldes condemned both public and private plays.

This authority, however, was questioned. The dramatist Gager set aside

as irrelevant the Mosaic law. He argued that in some cases a disguise

of sex was lawful: to save one's life, for example, or to benefit others.

Only when the disguise was made with ill intent did it become wrong.4

The Cambridge argument indicates that the ethics of disguise was

an object of concern to lawyers as well as theologians and lay moralists.

The ethics of disguise drew the attention of classical and legal scholars.

Gager's case received support from John Case, Cambridge Aristotelian


Tertullian, De Spectaculis, Section XVII, as cited in Thompson,
p. 15.

2Thompson, p. 94.

3Tbid., p. 96.

Ibid., p. 97.














scholar, and Gentili, an Italian friend of Gager and an esteemed

authority on international law. All three maintained that the Biblical

conditions under which the exchange of costume was condemned were no

longer present. The law was not to be read literally.1

A brief review of the specific issues of the debate will help to

convey its spirited tone and its assumed seriousness. Attacking one of

Gager's proposals, the theologian Rainoldes insisted that even for pur-

poses of saving his life, a man should not put on the clothing of a woman.

The argument for intention, which was important to Gager, was thereby

challenged. If intention were the criterion for judging the morality of

an act, a man, provided his heart was right, could pray in church with
2
his French hood oi2 This refutation of intention, Thompson observes,

economically took care of another of Gager's points: that wearing

women's attire temporarily for stage costume could.not be regarded as

the same thing as wearing it on a more permanent basis off-stage. In

substance, Rainoldes' response was this: "If the wearing of a garment

for a single time did not count, then Nero, who according to historians

never used the same garment twice, wore no clothing at all." Thus the

battle raged, in great earnestness, with varied weapons provided by

Biblical tradition and logic.

Biblical admonition received support by Ramist logic in the case


lIbid.

Ibid., p. 98.

3Ibid.














against disguise and its undesirable effects. Sidney's Arcadia, as

Hardin Craig has pointed out, shows the influence of Ramist logic, in

which everything has its proper place.1 Musidorus, upon discovering

Pyrocles dressed as an Amazon, reprimands him. By assuming this dis-

guise Pyrocles supposedly has done violence to nature; as a result he

may suffer, Musidorus warns. Pyrocles retaliates with another argument

based upon logic.

Whereas some critics of disguise approached the evil through the

dictates of the authority which forbade it, others concentrated upon a

description of the effects of disguise on the nature of the individual.

The conviction that transvestism perverted women into hermaphrodites

has already been discussed inasmuch as it is an example of the Puritani-

cal attack against transvestism in general. The dissembling of the male

as a female occasioned a corresponding perversion, according to William

Prynne in Histrio-Mastix. Such masquerading was condemned as a provoca-

tion to sodomy. Prmyne charged men actors with being "most effeminate,

both in apparel, body, words, and workers He Uses Stubbes for support:

Than these goodly pageants being done, every mate sorts
to his mate, every one brings another homeward of their
way very friendly, and in their secret conclaves (covertly)
they play the Sodomist or worse.2

Disguise, as we have seen, was subjected to censure from various

points. Its critics contended that a person's assuming the garb of the


iHardin Craig, The Enchanted Glass (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1937), p. 154.

2William Prynne, Histrio-Mastix, 1633, p. 187, and Stubbes, L.
verso-4 recto, as cited in Teagarten, p. 46.














opposite sex acted against Mosaic law and contaminated the purity of

his particular sex by imposing upon it its opposite. What effects did

this criticism have upon Shakespeare in his use of disguise?

Shakespeare seemed to have been aware of the current censorious

attitudes against disguise. His habit of having his disguisers defend

their action presupposes that his audience was conditioned by the philo-

sophical and religious climate that opposed disguise as an impropriety,

and that he knew it. His position appears to have been that irrespective

of what the extreme Puritans said, taking a disguise may be part of a

morally neutral or even praiseworthy action.

Several of Shakespeare's disguised heroines offer some sort of

apologia for their dissembling garb. Rosalind, in As You Like It, denies

that her disguise implies a change in her real nature as she remonstrates:

Dost thou think, though I am caparison'd like a man, I
have a doublet and hose in my disposition?
(III.ii.204-206)

Julia in The Two Gentlemen of Verona fears that the world might scandal-

ize her for undertaking so "unstaid" a journey in the costume of a man.

(II.vii.59-60) The rightness of her disguise is thus questioned, and it

goes undefended until a justification is offered, late in the play, by

Julia herself. She moralizes concerning her role:

It is the lesser blot, modesty finds,
Women to change their shapes, than men their minds.
(V.iv.108-109)

The action of Proteus--the lover of Julia who "changed his mind"--is

clearly exposed as wrong in this scene. Julia emerges perspectively as

at least less reprehensible. Julia's diverting the issue from a lesser













to a greater evil was calculated to have a disarming effect upon anyone

in Shakespeare's audience who was not more than mildly sympathetic with

the criticism against disguising. To continue our listing of Shake-

speare's heroines who offer some sort of explanation for their disguise:

Imogen of Cymbeline counterbalances censure of her immodesty with the

remark:

Though peril to my modesty, not death on't,
I would adventure.
(III.iv.155-156)

If moral controversy over transvestism and the Elizabethan custom

of giving serious attention to the appropriateness of all clothing drew

sharp attention to disguise when it appeared on stage, to a degree no

less remarkable the history of the stage itself provided a vivid vocabu-

lary of meaning to the device. For years in drama there had existed a

tradition of meaning in clothes and in the physical appearance of the

actor. Costume and various personal accoutrements in Greek and Roman

drama and in the English mysteries, moralities and interludes had been

a means whereby characters were more fully represented.

The Greek actor, who enacted a god or a hero, was made to appear

superhuman by means of the cothurnus, padding,and mask. These aspects of

his costume distinguished him from the chorus and audience and revealed

T his character through the concealments. The actor's physical form height-

ened and magnified by cothurnus, and padding, mutely testified to his

relative importance. Komisarjevsky, in analyzing the import of Greek


"reeburg has found apologies similar to these in earlier drama,
outside of Shakespeare. P. 173.













costume, defines the use of the mask. Masks were significative of

character types, especially in comedy. The complexion of the devices

was important: women's masks were white and the men's brownish. The

features had special meaning: impudence, an attribute of the parasite,

was recognizable through the hooked nose, while the snub nose desig-

nated the yokel and old housekeeper.1

The colors of the costumes in Greek drama were carefully selected

with attention to a tradition of color symbolism. Queens appeared in

flowing purple dresses with a train, while other women wore red, or in

Euripides' time, white. Kings wore green.2

In the New Attic Comedy (Menander) men wore the chiton, the dif-

ferent lengths of which signified their standing socially.3 Boys wore

purple; men dressed in brown and old men in wh:te. Black or grey

pointed out parasites and toadies; slaves wore white, and eunuchs striped

material. Women were differentiated by the white of the young woman, the

green or sky-blue of the old woman, or the yellow or multi-colored dress

of the courtesan.

Roman drama continued to transmit the tradition of significant

costuming. Specific aspects of the Roman costume are catalogued in

Bernard Sobel's work. For Roman tragedy the long sweeping robes,
I

Komisarjevsky, p. 39.

2lbid., p. 34.

3bid., p. 36.

Ibid., p. 37.













syrmata, corresponded to the Greek chiton; for comedy various short

garments recalled costumes of both the Phlyakes and the regular literary

comedy of the Greeks. Wigs (galeri) were worn, and also buskins, cor-

responding to the Greek cothurnus. The Roman comic types each had a

characteristic costume:2 slaves were always recognizable because of

their traditionally short gowns. Similarly, the soldier wore the

chlamys, and the toady a tight himation. All comic actors wore the
3
low shoe, the soccus.

Aspects of costume such as these are meaningful through estab-

lished convention. In his listing of significant Roman costumes Komis-

arjevsky notes that characters in distress appeared in careless attire.

Thus, it appears that costume was chosen for its intrinsic appropriate-

ness to character or immediate situation as well as for its more

prevalent uses for arbitrary, though fixed, denotation.

Roman comedy continued to attach importance to the color of the

actors' dress. For example, old men wore white; procurers wore a gay-

colored himation. Red portrayed wealth and dark hues poverty.5

The basic dramatic concept of costume--that it should help repre-

sent the character--appeared again in medieval drama. Again, not only


IBernard Sobel (ed.), The Theatre Handbook (New York: The Crown
Publishers, 19501 p. 186

2Komisarjevsky, p. 46.

3bid.

5Ibid.
5Ibid.














signs that seem arbitrarily conventionalized but also symbols that are

intrinsically appropriate are used. Physical props were relied upon for

symbolizing character occasionally in the mystery plays. In the Coventry

pageant angels, who of course enjoy a position superior to man in medieval

hierarchy, wore a species of cothurnus or short stilts to appear more

impressive, to represent physically or spatially their metaphysical

status. Since dramatic points of view and perspectives in art will

frequently be compared in my study, it might be noted here that this es-

sentially medieval hierarchial perspective persists into Renaissance

painting. In Botticelli and Parmigianino, for example, there is employed

"a method of scaling figures according to their psychological, social, or

ritual importance, much used in romanesque sculpture."2

Masks and other physical paraphernalia which were revealing dis-

guises were employed with increasing delicacy and intrinsic or psycho-

logical relevance. These devils were made up as snakes, sub species

virginis, i.e. with the faces of virgins. The form chosen for represent-

ing the devil acknowledges his nature: a deceiver frequently poses as

virtue. Similarly, in the moralities Whoredom presents herself as a smart

young lady with a mask.3 Komisarjevsky points out too that various animal

masks were used, thus opening rich resources of animal traits which could


1biid. p. 62.

2Wylie Sypher, Four Stages of Renaissance Style (Garden City,
New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1955), P. 28.

3Komisarjevsky, p. 62.

Ibid., p. 67.














economically help to characterize the human actors.

From Komisarjevsky's listings it is apparent that color, in the

mysteries and the moralities, was serviceable for characterization.

White, a perennial referent for purity, as suitable for the Saved Souls

of the Last Judgment (Coventry pageant), and for the Mother of God, who

changed her costume from blue to white, as death grew imminent. PietA

of the moralities wore white.1

The use of color, significant costume and appearance in general

reflect the medieval dramatist's concern with forcefully exposing what

the character stood for--not the character as a particular individual in

a unique situation, but the character as allegorically representative of

a generalized human situation, one in which metaphysical and moral re-

alities were confronted. Because of the importance of these issues,

not the specific but the general meaning of the character is essential

and must be transmitted, even to the wearing of inscribed headgear, by

the allegorical characters. Komisarjevsky observes that not infrequent-

ly the characters or supers who accompanied them carried boards or sticks

or flags for purposes of mailing the meaning of these characters even more

plain to the audience.2

Allegorical costumes were still seen on the Elizabethan stage, but

infrequently3 and outside of the extensive framework of allegorical


1
Ibid.
2 id.

Ibid., p. 68.














significance found in the moralities. Henry IV, Part II opens with a

speech by Rumour, who is represented as being "full of tongues" liter-

ally. Komisarjevsky notes that in Hans Sachs's Stultitia Stupidity wears
1
a fool's cap. The examples are not numerous.

Colors were still of significance, though the symbols frequently

changed and became more complex and less conventional. The growing

complexity of these symbols and the interest they aroused is, according

to M. Channing Linthicum, indicated in the widespread discussion on the

subject in the work of the Italians Sicile, Morato, Dolce, and Rinaldi.

Although they produced no books of their own, the English "must have been
2
familiar" with the Italian authors.

Supposedly in keeping with a recognizable convention of the day,

Jonson presented Veneration in ash, Gladness in green, Truth in blue,

Affection in crimson, Safety in carnation. However, Middleton was also

following a scheme of color symbolism when he attired Truth in white,

Error in ash, Envy in red, Zeal inc arnation, and so forth.3

Shakespeare heeded the meaning of colors. Blue, a mark of servi-

tude in the sixteenth century, is noted in The Taming of the Shrew and

Henry VI, Part I.4 Linthicum notes many uses of color in Shakespeare:

green symbolized youth and joy; it was suitably "the colour of lovers"5

11bid.

2M. Channing Linthicum, Costume in the Drama of Shakespeare and
His Contemporaries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936), p. 22.

3Ibid.,pp. 16-17.

41Ibid., p. 27.

5Ibid., p. 31.














On the other hand the somber green of the weeping willow shared with the

tree itself the symbolism of tragedy and grief.1 (Othello) The wearing

of yellow symbolized hope of marriage2 and was joyfully appropriated by

Malvolio.

The long tradition of expository costume was continued through the

symbolic use of types of cloth in the drama of Shakespeare's day. Linthi-

cum catalogues the various uses: Linsey-woolsey, a loosely woven plain

cloth of linen yarn and wool, was always spoken of contemptuously. Some-

times it indicates confused talk, as in All's Well That Ends Well. (IV.i.

13) Russet stood for honesty and simplicity because this homespun,

coarse cloth was not woven or dyed with any deceitfulness and the cloth

was usually left undressed. It functions metaphorically in Hamlet, Love's

Labour's Lost, and Patient Grissel. (I.i.166), (V.ii.413), (Sig. B4)

Among the silks, sarcenet, a fine, soft, thin fabric of taffeta weave,

served to suggest contemptuous slightness in Triolus and Cressida and

Henry IV Part I. (V.i.36) and (III.1.256)5 Velvet, used as a figure

of perfection, can be found in Measure for Measure. (I.ii.35)6




lbid., p. 34.
2
Ibid., p. 48.

3Ibid., p. 81.

4Ibid., p. 87.

5Ibid., p. 122.

lIbid., p. 126.














CHAPTER II


THE ELIZABETHAN DOUBLE VISION

"Methinks I see these things with parted eye,
When every thing seems double."
(A Midsummer Night's Dream. IV.i.193-191)


This chapter continues to answer the question of what sort of

attention and response disguise would elicit in Shakespeare's day by

defining the insistent Elizabethan habit of "seeking a further meaning"--

interpreting content through form (appearance) or exploring the nature of

something through analogy or paradox. We have seen that clothes, and

disguises particularly, were interpreted as appearances which made a

statement about their wearers. Such an interpretation represents a

pervasive Elizabethan perspective commonly explained as the deeply al-

legorical temperament of the period. This perspective is a persistent

tendency to juxtapose the outward form of anything and its content and

to take a vivid interest in the relationship perceived between them. A

definition of this mental habit--which we might call the Elizabethan

double vision--will be undertaken in this chapter without reference to

clothes or disguise in drama. We will look to other objects in the life

and expression of the times in order to establish this double vision

which provided a fundamental mode of response to Shakespeare's disguises.

Thin chapter will substantiate the proposition that men's minds searched

for a further meaning through the category of appearance (whether it be

considered trustworthy or deceitful) and through analogy or paradox.














Appearances (outward forms) were thoughtfully considered from two

biases: the medieval tradition of significant form persisted and stressed

that appearances were accurate indices to content, while on the other hand

there were concurrent attitudes which declared the deceitfulness of mere

appearance: that which was immediately confronted.

That appearances were taken as a reliable index to their underly-

ing content was illustrated in public displays. Spectacle and pageantry

presented forms which mutely conveyed moral meanings to the public. For

example, record is made of a firework display, visible to many, which in-

cluded "'the seven Deadly Sins in their lively colours, shape, and char-

acters,' and on top of a pinnacle 'a fierce lion couchant signifying

sudden vengeance.'"l Appearance in this instance--that is, the form

of the couched lion--was intended to direct one's attention to the con-

cept of vengeance.

In addition to directly expressive forms such as the lion, vari-

ous conventionalized forms could be relied upon as signals which clearly

pointed to their significance. The magnetic center of Elizabethan patri-

otism, Elizabeth and her court, were surrounded by an aura of signifi-

cant forms. Pomp and ceremony characterized her comings and goings,

sometimes directly expressive, of course, but often stylized to a

remarkable degree.

In The First Night of Twelfth Night Leslie Hotson's exhaustive

efforts to reconstruct the background of Twelfth Night recapture the


1Rosemary Freeman, English Emblem Books (London: Chatto and
Windus, 1948), p. 2.














formal, ritualistic character of the Whitehall festivals. The account

of Mikulin, a Russian dinner-guest, portrays perhaps most specifically

the stylization in eating and drinking. Following a ceremony involv-

ing five Cupbearers, these events took place:

And as we sat at dinner, the Queen sent by the Carver a
gift to Grigori--a white loaf on a dish covered with a
napkin, and he spoke to Grigori: "Our great Lady," quoth
he, "Elizabeth the Queen, of her grace bestows on you this
napkin ."l

Following this was the ceremonial eating of the bread and salt in con-

firmation of the treaty of peace and friendship.

Another indication of the ritualistic character of the court is

that

S. the ordinary mode of appointing an important
household officer was by the delivery of a white staff,
which became the symbol of his office, and which at the
funeral of the sovereign he solemnly broke over his head
before the bier.2

Though appearances were frequently, therefore, relied upon as

guides to meaning, Elizabethan people were far from naive. They were

trained skeptics. Especially suspect were appearances of virtue.

Biblical admonition, certainly familiar to the Elizabethan church-goers

and sermon-readers, was instrumental in conditioning minds to seek mean-

ings other than those which outward appearance immediately suggested.

Old Testament and New proclaimed that there are two ways of looking at

objects. I Samuel 16:7 states that "man looketh on the outward


1Leslie Hotson, The First Night of Twelfth Night (London: Rupert
Hart-Davis, 1954), p. 193.

2Shakespeare's England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1916), I, 84.














appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart." Admonishing his audience

to assume a more spiritual perspective, Paul proposes that "we look not

at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen" (II

Corinthians 4:18) even though, as finite beings we at best "see through

a glass darkly." (I Corinthians 13:12) "Satan himself is transformed

into an angel of light," (II Corinthians 11:14) while false teachers

and false prophets come in Christ's name. Christ exposes false appear-

ances: "Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but with-

in ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." (Matthew 23:28)

The admonition of the emblem and epigram back up scriptural

warnings against deceptions. One of Wither's epigrams, for example,

warns:

Bee Warie, wheresoe're, thou bee;
For, from deceit, no place is free.

In another of Wither's emblems a fashionably dressed woman, representing

spiritual deformity, appears to be attractive since she holds before her

hideous face a pleasant appearing mask. The accompanying epigram makes the

meaning unmistakable:

Deformitie, within may bee, 2
Where outward Beauties we doe see.

Not only were apparent virtue and superficial beauty to be

scrutinized for underlying corruption, but that which was obviously

secular or wicked was to be re-examined for possible spiritual meanings.

1
Wither, r. 183.

21bid., p. 229.














A scratch on the surface of falseness could reveal a truth, and much

classical pagan literature revealed its "sacred origins" and contained

helpful admonitions. Or, as the modern critic sees, it was recast into

an allegorical mold and shaped into an object fit for the edification of

Renaissance Christians. No source, no matter how pagan it might super-

ficially appear to be, was to be despised and spurned as unprofitable.

George Chapman, preferring moral to worldly wisdom, read the Iliad as

an allegory of "the body's fervour and fashion of an outward fortitude,"

and the Odyssey as that of %he mind's inward, constant, and unconquered

empire." Francis Meres spoke for his age in Palladis Tamia: "As bees

out of the bitterest flowers, and sharpest thornes, doe Gather the

sweetest hony: so out of obscene and wicked fables some profit may be

extracted."2 And, as Shakespeare's Henry V observes,

Thus may we gather honey from the weed,
And make a moral of the devil himself,

There is some soul of goodness in things evil
Would men observingly distil it out.
(Iv.i.4-5, 11-12)

In order to see something as it really is the Elizabethan mind

was constrained to regard it indirectly, exploring it through a rela-

tionship, either through double aspects of itself (analogy) or through

its opposite (paradox).


George Chapman, The Odysseys of Homer I, ed. Richard Hooper
(London: Reeves and Turner, 1897), p. xlvii-xlviii.

21rancis Meres, Palladis Tamia (1598), ed. Don Cameron Allen
(New York: Scholars' Facsimiles and Reprints, 1938), p. 268. Meres is
quoting Plutarch. Another of his adages--apparently one of his own--
makes an amusing contrast with the one quoted here: "Bees abstaine from
withered flowers: so we should abstaine from corrupt,.vicious and obscene
booked P. 266.














The analogical or allegorical habit was deeply rooted and vari-

ously manifest. The widespread interest in emblems, for one thing, at-

tests to the mental habit of a two-sided approach. The emblem books sup-

plemented an abstract moral precept with an emblem--a visual sign of an

idea, reinforcing concept with significant pictorial form. This inclina-

tion to juxtapose picture and concept is defined by Rosemary Freeman as

the enblematical temper of the Elizabethans. She observes that "the

personified figures which Spenser used so frequently might be found

painted on a ceiling, embroidered on a cloak, or woven in a tapestry. ..

Originating in France, the emblem books were introduced into Eng-

land in the 1580'3. Their instantaneous popularity affirms the emble-

matical character of the Elizabethan mind. Tillyard, prefacing a study

of English emblems, summarizes their significance.

Now one of the then habits of mind most prevalent yet
most remote from ourselves was the emblematical . .
The chief general interest of the English Emblem Books
is that they present in a very simple and striking form
one of the ruling mental principles of a whole century.
Their very ingenuousness and their popularity prove how
deeply the emblematical way of thinking had penetrated
the consciousness of England.2

Similar to the emblem is the rebus, a sort of riddle representing

some sentence or object by means of pictures or words, or a combination

of both. Shakespeare's coat of arms is exemplary. A breakdown of his

name into "Shake" and "speare" is the basis for the pictorial symbol:

a bird, at the top of the crest, raising a spear, apparently about to


1
Freeman, p. 2.

2Ibid., p. viii.














hurl it.

Even superficially considered, Elizabethan language and litera-

ture bear witness to a pervasive love of analogy. This is reflected not

only in whole works but in smaller units. Homonyms were a constant de-

light because of their concise double meanings. And, for another example,

the Petrarchan conceits, on a more sustained basis, provided two levels

of meaning.

Allegory, the most extensive example of this sort of literary

interest, was obviously a popular mode of expression. The Fairie Queen

is no doubt the most influential example of Elizabethan allegory. In

his search for moral truth the Red Cross Knight endured experiences which

find their profound appeal because they are analogous to vicissitudes

that befall us mortals. Of course, within the allegory the poet touches

upon paradox too. The Red Cross Knight frequently acquires new knowledge

through acquaintance with falsehood in its various forms. The quest for

truth in this work is indirect and offers a persistent challenge in the

discerning of true and false, right and wrong. Outward forms, suggest-

ing intrinsic beauty and truth, are not to be accepted uncritically.

Duessa, despite her appearance, ought not to be confused with Una. We

shall presently be further concerned with paradox derived from false

appearances.

Examples of religious and pious allegory are legion. Even a
IL
brief survey of the Short Title Catalogue will produce a host of titles

testifying to their popularity. The title of Anthony Nixon's allegory














is representative of their subject matter and approach. The Christian Navy.

Wherein is playnely described the perfit course to sale to the Hauen of

eternall happiness, 1602. This long poem describes the best course for

avoiding the rocks and whirlpools of the sea of life. Especially popular

among the middle classes was Richard Bernard's The Isle of Man. Or The

Legall Proceeding in Man-shire against Sinne. Phineas Fletcher's Purple

Island, Or the Isle of Man, 1633, reaches perhaps the limits of unreadable

complexity which characterizes these allegories.

Another type of allegorical literature that satisfied the dual

need of edification and amusement was the beast fable, which continued

in popularity through the time of Elizabeth. Reynard the Fox, for ex-

ample, was reprinted several times. Again, moral and psychological

truths were approached through indirection. By identifying a type of

human being with an animal, the easily recognized traits of the particular

animal reveal more vividly the quality of the more complex human. The

usefulness of animal symbolism is recognized by lizabethan dramatists--

Jonson and Chapman, for example--and is used continuously for economical

characterization.

Another indirect way of regarding something--in addition to ex-

ploring it analogically--was by examining it in the context of its

opposite, that is, through a paradox.

The recurrent Elizabethan distrust of appearances has already

been discussed. One evidence of the unreliability of appearance is that


Wright, p. 397.














what seems wicked, pagan, or sensual may be a mere facade for the good,

the religious, the spiritual. What lay beneath the apparent was its

opposite, according to this approach.

The eroticism of Ovid, objectionable on its literal level, was

rendered not only innocuous but spiritually elevating through Golding's

interpretations. The Pyramus and Thisbe tale, for instance, shows how

heady love turns to grief, and it vividly portrays how secret sin is

brought to light. Golding's edition of Ovid is prefaced by a laborious

defense of the pagan eroticism in terms of moral allegory.

If poets, then with leesings and with fables shadowed so
The certain truth, what letteth us to pluck those visors from
Their doings and to bring again the darkened truth to light,
That all men may behold therefore earnestly admonished to be
To seek a further meaning than the letter gives to see.1

The Elizabethan practice of "seeking a further meaning" from

classical literature depended upon the sanction and inertia provided

by medieval habit. Pagan writings could be conveniently accommodated

to the demands of the Christian attitude when they were regarded as cor-

ruptions of the true scriptures. At least their sources were good and,

taken allegorically, they were instructive. The role of Virgil in

Dante's Inferno reflects the medieval attempt to reconcile classical

and Christian traditions. Though not a Christian, Virgil appears to be

a suitable guide, a sort of pagan prophet for Christianity. Ovid was

similarly misunderstood in the late medieval period. With characteristic

irony, Chaucer, it will be recalled, has his Prioress in the Canterbury


lVid's Metamorphoses, trans. Arthur Golding, as cited in The
Renaissance in England, ed. Hyder E. Rollins and Herschel Baker (Boston:
D. C. Heath and Co., 1954), p. 541.













Tales wear the badge, "Love conquers all"; the legend was taken from

Ovid, but lacquered with Christian denotations.

In the poetry of Robert Southwell, a Jesuit, the sensual and the

spiritual are two sides of the same coin. This tendency of working

through opposites or working through the physical to the spiritual also

gathers its momentum through the medieval habit of thought. Supported

by Platonism and the tradition of the Petrarchan conceit it finally

reaches fruition in Donne and the metaphysicals, with whom it is usu-

ally associated. Southwell, contemporary with Shakespeare's productive

period, attests to the general search for truth through its varied and

often paradoxical facets. That the sensual is expressive of the spiri-

tual is axiomatic to Southwell. Explicit reference to the hidden quality

of virtue and beauty is to be found in many of his poems. In "New Prince

New Pomp" from Saint Peter's Complaint, 1595, we find that "An orient

perle is often found / In depth of dirty mire."l And"Love's Servile

Lot" presents love as a false mistress, who "shroudeth Vice in Vertue's

veyle."2 The most extensive and successful of these Elizabethan allegori-

cal techniques is, of course, found in Spenser's The Faerie Queene; work-

ing through the sensual and the unlovely, the poem aims at spiritual

beauty and the glorification of the Christian virtues. Moral truth, the

Elizabethan believed, could be discerned not only directly by precept or

historical precedent, but also through a discovery of its opposite--

error--or spiritual truth through the sensual. At the far end of the

'Robert Southwell, The Complete Poems of Robert Southwell, ed.
Alexander B. Grosart (London: Robson and Sons, 1B72), p. 116.

2Ibid., p. 78.













Renaissance, Milton recognized in his Areopagitica that good is known

through evil and that to eradicate evil would be to destroy the complex

which embodied good as well.

The attempt to reconcile opposites and see them as double mani-

festations of an underlying unity permeates every aspect of Renaissance

thinking. Elizabethans adhered to an orderly conception of the uni-

verse which ultimately provided resolution for opposites. Every crea-

ture and condition had its antithesis, but every antithesis found resolu-

tion in a concordant universe. Hot and cold, moist and dry--all ele-

ments fused or mixed to create objects having new, valuable properties.

Elizabethans "recognized that this exactly balanced conflict of opposites

was essential to the settled order of the world." The discussion of uni-

versal proportion in The Courtiers Academy by Annibale Romei, translated

by J. Kepers in 1598, supports this sort of generalization. Here the

beauty and design of the human body is extolled. Man's beauty is in hJi~

proportion--in this respect he is microcosmic--as he combines many op-

posites into a product of great attraction. The complex substance,

which reconciled a great number of opposites, gave much satisfaction to

the Elizabethan. The aesthetic appeal of a diamond is less than man's;

its beauty lies in its white color, only a single quality.2



1James Winny (ed.), The Frame of Order: An Outline of Elizabethan
Belief Taken From Treatises of the Late Sixteenth Century (New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1957), p. 19.


2Ibid., p. 211.













This Renaissance habit of a double vision through opposites is

reflected in the Ramist logic of the day. This system is a dialectic

through which moral truth appears to hang suspended between the af-

firmative and the negative; both sides are debated and every question

is approached through its two sides. Ramus states that dialectic

"proclaims to us the truth of all argument . whether the truth be

necessary, as in science, or as in opinion, contingent, that is to say,
1
capable both of being and not being." Because something is contingent,

relative, does not mean it cannot be known. Its truth lies within

categories of both being and non-being. Hardin Craig proposes that

this recognition of the double aspect of a moral issue "is an intuitive

response to the spirit of the age." And this interest in dialectic

was a pervasive one in Elizabethan England. "Proficiency in dialectic

with its concomitant rhetoric was the most serious educational and cul-

tural ideal of the age."3

Shakespeare himself reflects in his drama and poetry the Eliza-

bethan concern with the paradoxical and hidden character of truth.

"The Phoenix and the Turtle" concludes that

Truth may seem, but cannot be;
Beauty brag, but 'tis not she;
Truth and Beauty buried be.


Petrus Ramus, Dialectique, 1955, p. 2. as cited in Wilbur S.
Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500-1700 (Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1956), p. 154.

2Craig, p. 157.

3lbid., p. 152.













And what are they buried in? In the false, in the superficially or

partially true, or in a paradoxically existing mixture of the false and

the true--as Cressida says, "To say the truth, true and not true."

(I.ii.106) Enigmatic or paradoxical statements such as the following

occur throughout Shakespeare's drama: "Truth doth . falsely blind

the eyesight" (Love's Labour's Lost I.i.75-76); "I am not what I am"

(lago, Othello I.i.65 and Viola, Twelfth Night III.i.153); "nothing that

is so is so" (Feste, Twelfth Night IV.i.9); "a natural perspective that

is and is not." (Duke, Twelfth Night. V.1.224).

The literary and educated mind of Elizabethan England appears to

have been sensitively aware of various meanings latent in a single sig-

nificant form. But what of Shakespeare's audience' The spirit of the

age was conditioned by the Biblical and logical tradition of thought and

the widespread occurrence of analogical and paradoxical multiple expres-

sions. Basing my impression of an Elizabethan audience on recent

studies such as Alfred Harbage's and Leslie Hotson's, I assume that in

background and the degree of attentiveness the audience would have been

perceptive to the dramatic, expository and symbolic value of Shake-

speare's disguises. A widespread ability to quote from the plays would

indicate spectator attentiveness. Furthermore, according to Harbage,

"The ability to quote extended beyond the literate and cultivated

spectators."1



Alfred Harbage, Shakespeare's Audience (New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press, 1941), p. 120.














Harbage suggests convincingly that the educational background,

emotional responsiveness, and general attentiveness of Shakespeare's

heterogeneous audience were on a higher level than has traditionally

been supposed. Unfortunately, railers against theater-goers, upon

whose records subsequent evaluations have been dependent, are, on the

whole, the moralists, who found it convenient to paint a clear-cut

black picture. If future ages judged modern motion pictures by the

censuring commentary of present day evangelists, the complexity of

motives and experiences of all movie-goers would be similarly simplified

and obscured.

Supplementing the biased tone of the moralizers is the "sour

grape" attitude of unsuccessful or disillusioned dramatists. Harbage

discovers that "the most successful writers were less critical when

they had scored a hit."1

The ordinary commoner was trained to detect an abstract meaning

from an outward form; he was accustomed to this way of looking per-

spectively through things. An emphasis upon graphic similarities among

things permeated Elizabethan thinking. The commonness of this analogiz-

ing perspective is summarized by Winny: "The unwearied delight in analogy

and correspondence which sixteenth-century literature exhibits is

nourished by beliefs held in common by theologian, scientist, and poet,
2
and deeply impressed upon the outlook of all three."


aIbid., p. 130-131.

Winny, p. 15.














Moral truth and the relevance of objects and incidents were

continuously sought after through something else: its analogical

counterpart or its opposite. This sort of perceptiveness resulted

not only from the cultural conditioning that would have been restricted

to certain classes or occupations--the highly literate, or the cleric,

for example--but it was generated by a pervasive allegorical habit of

thinking. The Elizabethan did not have to be an aristocrat or a student

highly trained in scholastic thought to respond to the import of the bon-

fire, mentioned previously, in which a fierce lion signified sudden

vengeance.

Even more universally, this sort of perceptiveness testifies

to the ubiquitous ability or tendency of man to see more clearly that

which is hidden. What one must attend to most carefully, one sees

best. Apart from the conditioning of time and place and even educa-

tion, this psychological phenomenon presents itself in human nature.

Emily Dickinson, who so frequently captures a common but infrequently

expressed psychological reality, succinctly conveys this expository

value of obscuring forms.

The thought beneath so slight a film
Is more distinctly seen,--
As laces just reveal the surge,
Or mists the Apennine.

Or, I would like to propose, as disguise reveals the character so

obscured.














CHAPTER III


CHARACTER DEPTH THROUGH DISGUISE

"I am not what I am."
(Viola, Twelfth Night III.i.153)


At its dramatic best, disguise in Shakespeare's work not only

conceals but, paradoxically, reveals through concealment. Or, expressed

in the idiom of Chapters I and II, it is a form of deception which never-

theless becomes not a piece of wickedness but an avenue to truth.

Shakespeare's use of disguise for characterization will be

analyzed mainly through a close study of three disguised characters.

Henry V and the Rosalind of As You Like It serve to illustrate how dis-

guise liberates a character, granting him freedom to express and there-

by reveal himself more fully. Secondly, Rosalind and Coriolanus explain

the function of disguise as a kind of visible metaphor, a means of

epitomizing some quality in the disguised character. An auxiliary and

final purpose of this chapter is to examine disguise as it compares in

effectiveness and dramatic thrift with other techniques for the exposi-

tion of character and as it complements their techniques.

Apart from those qualities of Henry V which disguise reveals, the

king suffers under so heavy a thematic load that it is difficult to

imagine responding to him with sympathy or even with dramatic belief.

The play presents the completed realization of Hal as a king, and it

also brings to a resolution the ideas of power and statesmanship broached

in Richard II. In Henry V a serious and predominating theme is the














establishment of English order after a troubled period of internal con-

flict. Henry is deeply concerned with the legality and ecclesiastical

approbation which underlie his action in claiming the throne of France.

He desires to act "with right and conscience,"--to be right even more

than to fulfill his own interests, so he inquires into the validity of

his claim upon France before he will fight. With a legal foundation

beneath him and a religious demeanor, Henry faces battle "by God's

Grace." With a settled and quiet dignity, which commands respect and

loyalty, he unites the factions springing from various national

peculiarities.

In order to support the exalted representation of kingship in

Henry V, it is necessary for Shakespeare to establish and maintain

Henry's royal dignity and moral purpose. Henry heeds a noble obligation

and resolutely pursues it.

However, it is difficult for the main character of a play to arouse

the sympathetic interest of an audience when he is a man without any inner

conflict or human weakness. A new facet to Henry's personality is il-

luminated when he appears disguised in the midst of his discouraged

soldiers in the camp. Ifnry dissembles in the cloak of Sir Thomas Erp-

ingham, one of his officers. Temporarily Shakespeare thereby frees

Henry from his weighty role as the unflinching and righteous monarch,

allowing him to engage in a new identity--in a position no more exalted

than good old Erpingham's. Only superficially, however, is Henry some-

one else; actually he is more fully himself. That is, he reveals aspects

of his essential nature that have been thus far concealed.


I














Henry's status as king, quite idealized in this play, does not

give an opportunity for the exposure of the common fears that he shares

with the lowliest of his men. But in his disguise Henry can tell us how

he feels, under the guise of interpreting the nature of the king to a

soldier, John Bates. "I think the king is but a man, as I am," he

begins.

The violet smells to him as it does to me; the element
shows to him as it doth to me; all his senses have but
human conditions. His ceremonies laid by, in his naked-
ness he appears but a man; and though his affections are
higher mounted than ours, yet when they stoop, they stoop
with the like wing. Therefore, when he sees reason of
fears as we do, his fears, out of doubt, be of the same
relish as ours are; yet, in reason, no man should possess
him with any appearance of fear, lest he, by showing it,
should dishearten his army. (IV.i.105-ll7)

Shakespeare has chosen an exceptionally effective medium through

which he reveals to us the humanity of Henry, which involves, in part,

both sensitivity to fear and to the responsibility that restrains him

from more direct expressions of personal feeling to his subjects. The

conventional devices for such revelations of feelings that are inex-

pressible because of the demands of the action are the aside and the

soliloquy. Set speeches, however, diverge from the moving plot, or

they are generally uneconomical modes of disclosure, serving a single

purpose. Shakespeare, as his technique develops, learns to do without

Ssoliloquy or else to use it more discriminatingly and with greater

relevance to character and situation; Hamlet comes to mind as the

obvious example.

In Henry V, a comparatively early play, a soliloquy follows the

disguise scene. Disguise dramatically complements the conventional set














piece. The soliloquy makes explicit what has just been dramatized:

outward appearances are misleading or incomplete presentations. The

sorrows and tribulations of a king are laid bare in this impassioned

complaint, which again points beyond the Henry who was revealed only

through his official speeches and royal actions, to offer intimations

of humanity.

Henry inspects the nature of ceremony. According to established

Elizabethan attitudes the regal forms constituting the ceremony of which

Henry speaks, are directly significant of the god-like qualities of the

king, a being distinctively different from the common citizen. Henry,

however, addresses ceremony in this way:

And what art thou, thou idol Ceremony?
What kind of god art thou, that suffer'st more
Of mortal griefs than do thy worshippers?

Art thou aught else but place, degree, and form.
(IV.i.257-263)

Ironically, those ceremonious forms which were respected by Elizabethans

as revealing the nature of kingship are exposed as incomplete guides,

whereas Henry's disguise, the assumption of garb that hid his position,

actually proved the means for expressing his innermost being.

Through the combined effects of these indirect and direct dis-

plays of personal pathos, we are made aware of the problems and fears

facing the king--problems and fears which, because of the demands of

his situation, he must never undisguisedly disclose. Henry emerges

not simply as a capable and righteous ruler or one whose initial propo-

sitions are simply tested and made to triumph, but he emerges also as a













more dynamic human person and thereby arouses from the audience the

sympathetic response due a dramatic hero.

Disguise serves another purpose in Henry V. As an English king,

personally qualified for his noble role, Henry can no longer associate

closely with his old cronies Pistol, Nym, and Bardolph. But he is some-

what liberated from unrelieved seriousness when he assumes a disguise,

talks freely with his men, and indulges in a bit of joking, in a spirit

reminiscent of the fun-loving Prince Hal of the Henry IV plays. Donning

Sir Thomas' cloak, Henry again jokes with his old friend, Pistol. In

his elevated position as king, Henry can no longer be his comrade, how-

ever; and the degree of the difference between the two--a difference

which combines with other aspects of the play to exalt Henry--is ex-

pressed here as Henry, through his disguise, is temporarily in a posi-

tion to banter with Pistol. The import of Henry's jesting eludes the

naive Pistol because of its sophistication. For example, when Pistol

asks Henry his name, the king replies, "Harry, le Roy."/ "Le Royl a

Cornish name. Art thou a Cornish crew?" asks Pistol, obviously ig-

norant of French. (IV.i.48-50) The disparity between the characters is

now almost too great to permit a mutually satisfying, reciprocal species

of joking. Henry's old sense of humor is somewhat recaptured and com-

bines with his revealed fear and compassion to humanize him; and at the

same time Henry's transcendent status is re-emphasized through his evi-

dent superiority, even while he is in disguise, to his former comrades.

The Elizabethan mode of expression through opposites underlies the dis-

guise technique: what the king is is more clearly seen through what he














is not. With his characteristic condensation the dramatist accomplishes

several things at the same time, through a smoothly adapted convention

which--unlike soliloquy--does not retard the movement of the play.

The disguise of Rosalind in As You Like It is similar in function

to that of Henry V; it allows for a more complete picture of the charac-

ter through an artistically controlled conventional device. Disguise

grants Rosalind freedom of action and language, which her femininity

would otherwise have restricted. Through the artifice of disguise

Shakespeare also offers dramatic statement of qualities essential to

Rosalind's nature.

Again it is necessary to examine the play as a whole before

considering the special role of disguise. The play is essentially about

love, from the most earthy love of Touchstone and Audrey to the etheri-

alized, sentimentalized relationship between Silvius and Phebe. Rosa-

lind is also a lover, and in this role she is the median for love; Rosa-

lind dominates the drama not merely by virtue of her attractive per-

sonality, but because she stands between all the extremes of the play--

including excesses of many sorts, but excesses in attitudes toward love

in particular. When Jacques says be likes his melancholy better than

laughing, Rosalind reproves him: "Those that are in extremity of either

are abominable fellows." (IV.i.5-6) And to Silvius she says, "You are

a fool, and turned into th' extremity of love." (IV.iii.22-23) Rosalind

interprets the excesses constituting these extremes and helps to resolve

them by offering the realistic type of love which she represents.













Even her own lover, Orlando, comes within the commentary of her

values. Though loved by Rosalind, he romanticizes love too much for

Rosalind's taste. Through her disguise Rosalind assumes the more ag-

gressive role of a man and can criticize Orlando's sentimentality,

which she could not do directly. Rosalind and Orlando are in love

throughout the play. Rosalind fell in love with Orlando immediately

and completely; she had little opportunity to know him well. In the

forest of Arden Rosalind is slightly taken aback when she finds that the

young lover, whose verses she and Celia--prompted by Touchstone--have

found so ridiculous, is none other than her Orlando. Orlando has been

characterized as comely, strong, gentle, brave, modest and in all as-

pects quite ideal as a lover for Rosalind. However his sentimentality

is not in accord with her more realistic approach to love. Orlando

says he will die of love; this, Rosalind says, is nonsense.

Orlando obviously must be re-educated in the nature of love and

Rosalind, through her disguise, is an eminently qualified critic and

instructor, but one always in keeping with the established tone of

comedy, which dominates the play. As the median or the synthesizer,

"the golden girl" in a drama of many extremes, Rosalind, through her

disguise, is allowed to be both an amusing and penetrating critic on

the excesses of love.

For such an aggressive role as Rosalind has to play, Shakespeare

no doubt had some problems. In literature, the troubadour tradition of

the passive and aloof female was not so entirely replaced in Shakespeare's













day, that overbearing women would appear attractive. And according to

the accredited faculty psychology of the times, certain proprieties were

imposed upon the female nature: under an influential convention Rosa-

lind, as a woman, was expected to be passive and phlegmatic. Disguise

does much to liberate the heroine from such restrictions.

In actual life, the froward woman was strongly reproached. Each

age seems to have its distinctive species of controversy over women and

sixteenth and early seventeenth century England was certainly no ex-

ception. Burgher writers in particular were voluminous and spirited in

their pronouncements concerning woman's place in society.1 Growing in-

terest in discussions of the relations of the sexes was provoked by the

increasing liberty of women.2

Venting their displeasure, the conservatives reproached women for

their masculine boldness and growing sphere of activity. Husbands were

ordered to assume more firm regulatory roles and to maintain leadership.

One among the many evils of the female nature was talkativeness. Another

was scheming. Intriguing females, whose prototypes are Eve, Jezebel,

Herodias, and other Biblical characters, were included in the diatribes.

On both accounts Rosalind and other vivacious and dissembling women

from Shakespeare would undoubtedly be subject to a barrage of vitupera-

tion, had they been actual Elizabethans.



1Wright, p. 465.

2lbid., p. 466.













The number of books recording this sort of censure was legion.

For illustration, Abraham Vele's publication in 1560 will serve: The

decyte of women, to the instruction and ensample of all men, yonge and

olde, newly corrected. This supplied in addition to the text,

a pictorial warning to husbands, in a woodcut on the
title-page fearsomely presenting a woman astride her
spouse, who goes on all fours with a bridle in his mouth
as she flogs him with a three-lashed whip. The prologue
maintains that only frowarl and deceitful women need take
offense at the book . .

Such books were in popular demand and their contents were evidently well

known if not always agreed with. Critics of the anti-feminists, as one

might suppose from a period that was fond of logical disputation, chal-

lenged the ideas of their opposition point by point.

Hic Mulier: Or, the Man-Woman, though it appeared as late as 1620,

is nevertheless representative of the distrust of women that character-

ized the period when Shakespeare was producing his plays. Opprobrium is

heaped upon "you Masculine women," "that are the gilt durt, which im-

broaders Playhouses."2 And this is Rosalind's position precisely. She

is "gilt durt," in keeping with the scriptural tradition of deceptive

women, even though, the moralists would claim, her intention was not

malicious. Or, to use another contemporary expression, Rosalind is a

contemptible "guilded pill" as are all who dissemble, particularly those

who use cosmetics. Through the following unattractive metaphor William


lbid., Fp. 470-471.

2Hic Mulier: Sig. A4, as cited in Wright, p. 494.













Prynne, who can always be counted on to analyse the wickedness of women,

makes this analogy: "To conclude, whosoever she be, shee's but a Guilded

Pill, composde of these two ingredients, defects of nature, and an

artificial seeming of supplies, tempered and made up by pride and

vanity, and may wel be reckned among these creatures that God neuer

made."

Shakespeare was aware of this line of thinking--this censure of

assertiveness and the attitude that the very nature of the woman was

altered by the assumption d' disguise. As was mentioned earlier, Shake-

speare's heroines make disarming statements implying that no immediate

and pat conclusions concerning their natures can be.reached merely on

the basis of their use of disguise.

Rosalind is vindicated in another way. Her disguise is an al-

legedly evil form out of which good actually comes. That we are here

confronted with a dramatic statement flatly contradictory to the allega-

tion that disguise is evil because it produces evil consequences is

clear. We are not dealing with an accidental. Within the comic frame-

work of plays such as The Merchant of Venice and Twelfth Night, to men-

tion just two, good comes of disguise. Good comes of Henry's disguise;

certainly it is the consequence of the Duke's disguise in Measure for

Measure and of Kent and Edgar in King Lear. Although Shakespeare's


William Prynne, Histrio-Mastix The Players Scourge, or, Actors
Tragaedie, Divided into Two Parts (London: Printed by E. A. and W. I.
for Michael Sparke, 1633), pp. 60-61.














plays abound in pernicious dissemblers and impersonators of many sorts,

nowhere after the early Henry VI is a physical disguise assumed with a

destructive result.

In yet another manner Shakespeare provides a defense for Rosa-

lind's disguise. It is an oblique defense, but cogent.

This oblique defense of Rosalind and its effect upon her charac-

terization will be best understood if we first establish the mode of

argument which underlies it as both typically Shakespearean and also as

a form of rhetoric well known to Elizabethans.

This mode of argument consists of using an opponent's argument as

a means of refuting his major contention. It is enticing to think of

Shakespeare's using the very form of what is criticized--the disguised

woman--to vindicate it or at least to render it innocuous and appealing.

The rhetorical device of using an objection to turn it back against him

who made it would certainly have been known to Shakespeare, and its use

is consistent with his practice elsewhere. Characteristic of Shake-

speare's drama is an amused, gibing attitude towards contemporary but

unreasonable ways of thinking or fixed beliefs. One way of mildly and

subtly counteracting them without relying upon direct satire, is to al-

lude to the questionable object or actually to employ it and somehow

through its use, parody or otherwise undermine it. This is accomplished

through classical modes of argumentation, with which Shakespeare is

thoroughly at home. For example, Shakespeare grants his critic the

critic's own ground through Julia's speech in The Two Gentlemen of

Verona. "It is the lesser blot . women to change their shapes,














than men their minds." (V.iv.l10-109) The argument against disguise--

that it is a blot--is conceded, but its desirability over inconstancy

of intent sets it advantageously in a new light,because it is observed

as relative to what is worse. Rhetorically this type of defense and re-

buttal is metastasis. This device involves the turning back of an ob-

jection against him who made it.

There is in Antony and Cleopatra an instance of the use of metas-

tasis for an amusing gibe. Stubbes in his Anatomie of Abuses, written

1583, condemns plays in which bawdiness, lechery, and adultery appear in

"infinite varieties" 2 What context Shakespeare put this pejorative

phrase in is well known: "Time cannot wither her," says Enobarbus, "nor cus-

tome stale/ Her infinite variety." In the prevailing moral code of

Elizabethans such as Stubbes and in the eyes of the Romans the "infinite

variety" of Cleopatra is vicious. Yet the whole force of Cleopatra's

triumphant personality turns the phrase back upon itself--helped, of

course, by the admiring tone of Enobarbus' eulogy. A phrase initially

pejorative becomes the means of memorable praise. Thus Shakespeare ac-

cepts an anti-feminist's phrase and so treats it that the original

intention is precisely reversed.

The type of argument behind this allusion can be more clearly seen

in the development of Antony's oration in Julius Caesar. Here the


1Henry Peacham, The Garden of Eloquence (1577), P. 18o, as cited
in Sister Miriam Joseph, Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1949), p. 383.

2Stubbes, p. 143.


__














metastasis is employed in its conventional context of verbal argument

rather than transformed into a dramatic device. Following Brutus' speech

defaming the murdered Caesar, Antony begins with the premise of the

"noble Brutus"--that Caesar was ambitious. Antony uses this premise,

in the guise of agreeing, to eventually undermine it and establish a

new conclusion. Brutus' speech has succeeded. Through his established

character of a good, noble man and his appeal to his audience as reason-

able men, he has successfully convinced these auditors that Caesar was

overly ambitious. Antony in attacking Brutus must work through the pre-

mise of his opponent and through the attitude of Brutus toward his

audience that had been fundamental to the establishment of this premise.

That is, the audience, appealed to as reasonable men, are convinced of

Brutus' honor and Caesar's infamy on this basis. It is the aim of

Antony, however, to lead them, by appealing to their emotions, into a

sympathetic attitude towards Caesar. Unable to violate the assumptions

of the crowd at the moment, Antony must condition the assumption with a

not too obvious "if";

The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious.
If it were so . .
(III.11.82-84)

Repeatedly Caesar's ambition is presented as the conclusion of the

noble Brutus. If Caesar isn't ambitious--and Antony increasingly in-

sinuates that he isn't--then Brutus' nobility is put in question. And

if his nobility is put in question, so is the assumption that the crowd

has behaved reasonably by receiving Brutus. Thus Antony prepares the

way for appealing to them as men of passion.













It is not meet you know how Caesar lov'd you.
You are not wood, you are not stones, but men;
And being men, hearing the will of Caesar,
It will inflame you, it will make you mad.
(III.ii.146-149)
The necessity of disarming and refuting through accepted modes of

thought, which is the common factor in the examples of rebuttal cited

above, is certainly not beyond the interest and practice of Shakespeare

on a scale that is larger than these incidental occurrences. Shakespeare

frequently exposes a character's inappropriate reliance upon conventional,

facile approaches to truth. In Julius Caesar use is made of Brutus'

reliance upon idealistic precept to expose its inapplicability in a

specific situation. Hamlet's reliance upon example or precedent--

Horatio and Fortinbras--has no efficacy in the solution of his own

individualized dilemma.

Our excursion into examples of Shakespeare's use of a rhetorical

mode of argumentation has taken us through devious by-ways. However, by

defining this typically Shakespearean and Elizabethan way of looking at

things, this discussion provides a basis for insight into the dramatist's

use of disguise. Now back to Rosalind.

Rosalind assumes a disguise, implying her deceitful nature. That

is, in an Elizabethan frame of reference she is two-faced, two irreconcil-

able things at the same time, which nevertheless produce something new--

a new creature, one not created by God--a hermaphrodite, Prynne would

proclaim. Dramatically, too, she is a new creature. In a sense, Prynne

is right. His premise is granted; a new statement about Rosalind's

nature is proffered through her assumption of a disguise. But the













spectacle of disguise dramatically imposes a new conclusion upon this

premise, just as Julia, in the statement already referred to, recast

the traditional criticism against disguise and just as Antony used the

statement of Brutus and Shakespeare the phrase of Stubbes to force new

conclusions upon them. Rosalind is a rounded character composed of op-

posite qualities of masculinity and femininity that are in their com-

plexity much more realistic and convincing than the conclusion of the

moralist who depends upon a false belief in the connection between

clothes and their wearer.

Compared with the moralists who objected to disguise, Shakespeare

is more modern and, of course, artistic in his approach, using disguise

to show how many facets of Rosalind's personality--a personality in

which the traditionally accepted distinctions between male and female

are not mutually exclusive. As in Ramist logic, "to be and not to be"

are really one; they are aspects of being in its more comprehensive

scope. Or, as in the rhetorical device of prosapodosis, none of the

alternatives are rejected: the device of prosapodosis "overthroweth noe

part of the Division, but returneth some reason to each member . .

affirms and keepes all sides upp." Rosalind's personality is allusive

and realistically complex, one that twentieth century anthropologists

such as Margaret Mead could acclaim as lifelike, recognizing as they do

that many of the qualities commonly attributed to either the male or

female as intrinsically peculiar to that sex are actually the products

of conditioning cultures.


1Hoskyns, p. 160, as cited in Sister Miriam Joseph, p. 362.














Clearly, therefore, at all points where Shakespeare was defending

Rosalind's disguise against the objections lodged in his audience's

minds he was accomplishing positive dramatic disclosures of material

vital to his play's total statement. The dramatically important matter

is, of course, the positive statement made possible by disguise, and to

illustrate such positive statement we shall now more extensively explore

the contrasts implicit in Rosalind disguised.

Disguise reveals Rosalind through offering a contrast between

what she is--a woman--and what she appears to be--a man. Disguise not

only establishes Rosalind as a personality composed of both masculine

and feminine qualities, but it accentuates her femininity through the

concealment. This is generally the effect of the disguised heroine to

Those who witness performances of the plays. It is true especially of a

play whose dialogue helps to center attention on the real identity of the

woman in disguise. Not only Rosalind but also Viola, for example, in an

actual dramatic production of Twelfth Night emerges much more emphati-

cally feminine than if the romantic action of the play had not involved

masquerading. And her femininity is not merely accentuated by the con-

trast between her physical woman's body and its man's dress. Because of

disguise she is both somewhat masculine and more than ordinarily feminine.

SShe is more womanly in disguise because of the constant and unmistakable

reference to what she isn't--a man. This reference is provided less

by her disguised appearance than by the double entendres, the postures

and gestures, the mannerisms, and the whole set of relationships

occasioned and sustained by this situation.














The effect of this constant emphasis on Rosalind's and Viola's

feminine-masculine duplicity is relevant to the larger interests of the

plays. Both plays abound in a spirit of love and joy in la difference;

and a conspicuous means of establishing la difference is disguise. The

nature of the comedy that emerges in these plays and is heightened by

disguise is incomparably more delicate than is common to the Plautine

and Italian conventions.

Differences are more apparent when resident in a single form.

The pun can be a way of establishing a new attitude through the presented

differences, just as a rhetorical device can force together argument and

refutation through the same premise.1 With reference to Macbeth Kenneth

Muir regards Shakespeare's mature pun to be an "uncomic pun" in the sense

that it functions with serious, far-reaching dramatic effects.2 For one

thing it links together unrelated imagery, acting as a solvent for mixed

metaphors. This is by analogy a statement of the effect of Rosalind-in-

disguise, inasmuch as she can be interpreted as a visual pun.

The contrast offered by a woman in the disguise of a man is, as we

observed in the rhetorical device, prosapodosis, dependent upon a coin-

cident presentation of opposites, not upon an alternation between one

part of an antithesis and the other. Shakespeare uses simultaneous


1Shakespeare suggests a thing by saying its opposite, more obvious-
ly, through the verbal statement. In King Lear, for example, the Fool
counsels Lear: "But I will tarry; the Fool will stay,/ And let the wise
man fly./ The knave turns fool that runs away;/ The Fool no knave, perdy."
(II.iv.83-86) Suggested by Hudson in the Furness ed., p. 145.

2Kenneth Muir, "The Uncomic Pun," The Cambridge Journal, III (May,
1950), 472-485.














contrast in a number of ways besides disguise and the pun. It is the

operating force behind the oxymoron and other verbal paradoxes or al-

literative devices that permeate Shakespeare's art. E. E. Stoll in Art

and Artifice in Shakespeare analyzes the dramatic effect achieved through

contrast, particularly with regard to the simultaneous existence of op-

posite qualities in the personality of a single character. Othello, for

example, does not vacillate between love and hate; he both loves and

hates concurrently. This juxtaposition of opposite qualities is explained

more fully in the following quotation, in which Stoll briefly--and in-

triguingly--allies it with the "situation of disguise."

Instead of the conflict and contention, oscillation or fluc-
tuation, resolve and counter-resolve, of the Racinian or
Cornelian hero, there is, through all the changes, a contrast,
continually reappearing, of the two feelings side by side.
He is not now loving again, now jealous, but both together.
There are Juxtaposition and opposition instead of contention
and alternation; and this very much as in ancient tragedy, the
Antigone, the Oedipus, or the Agamemnon, and somewhat as in
the situation of disguise, of Titus' and Hamlet's feigned
madness, or of Macbeth's present horror of the deed which he
is doing. Through the mask of Othello's hatred the eyes of
his love are ever looking:
"Come, swear it, damn thyself
Lest, being like one of Heaven, the devils themselves
Should fear to seize thee'"l
(IV.ii.35-37)

Reference has been made to Rosalind as a visual pun. Dramatically

this is her effect--what she is is expressed in terms of what she appears

not to be--and the possibility of her being recognized as such is con-

sonant with the Elizabethan mode of double vision: looking at something


iElmer Edgar Stoll, Art and Artifice in Shakespeare: A Study in
Dramatic Contrast and Illusion (New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1933),
p. 24.


- -














two ways.

Much of the Elizabethan double vision employed one of its objects

for the sake of expressing the other. The emblem existed as pictorial

reinforcement for the epigram. The sensual was frequently merely a con-

veyance for the spiritual, as in Golding's Ovid. For the sake of examin-

ing Shakespeare's complexity in the framework of the Elizabethan double

vision, the eyes of modern aestheticians are directive. Maurice Grosser

helps to define the Elizabethan double vision when he discusses the use

of double images in art. How to look at paintings is the problem at-

tacked by his study The Painter's Eye. Grosser discusses double images

in modern art, nothing that as a technique of painting it is not new.

Allegory, which was the subject matter of so much of the
painting and poetry of the Middle Ages and of the Renaissance,
is but the systematic use of double images. Decorative
painters, like the sixteenth century Arcimboldo, for example,
often painted landscapes, or still-lifes, which seem from a
certain distance become grotesque faces. But here the double
image was only a decoration or a joke; or, as with the al-
chemists, was used to conceal knowledge in an impressive and
secret alphabet; or, as in allegory, furnished the painter
with a useful framework for composing the world he knew into
large, rich pictures, at the same time exhibiting his philosophy
or his wit.1

At any rate, one meaning in the double image existed for the sake

of another. Modern art, Grosser proposes, is distinguishable because all

of its meanings are equally important. Of which perspective is Shake-

speare typical? He is modern in his concern for life-like complexity.

Rosalind's masculinity does not merely reveal by contrast her femininity.


-Maurice Grosser, The Painter's Eye (New York: The New American
Library of World Literature, Inc., 1956), pp. 168-169.














It does not exist merely for the sake of the underlying femininity. The

masculine aggressiveness and resourcefulness and her capacity for rather

coarse jesting while she is in disguise are authentic parts of her total

personality. Her total meaning does not reside in an either-or dialectic

between what are traditionally accepted as opposites but in the combina-

tion of the two, plus qualities revealed through her very willingness

to assume disguise: that is, an adventuresome willingness, defying

modesty, to try a new experience.

The shock of Rosalind and Viola in disguise is a type of counter-

point that can be expressed also in terms of what Grosser calls Neo-

Classicism in art. He mentions the Neo-Classicism of Picasso's Mother

.and Child "where a family portrait is disguised as a late Roman fresco";

of the same painter's costumes for Satie's ballet Parade, "where the in-

effectual managers are clothed in the monumental style of a New York

skyscraper"; of the films of Mae West, "where an up-to-date and brazen

sensuality is displayed in the rococo trappings of a decade supposed to

be more prudish than our own."l In all these examples the shock of

double image comes from the incongruity between the content and its

form. The effect of these juxtaposed incongruities is obviously un-

like the effect of medieval and Renaissance allegory. The two elements

of the modern double vision say something about each other and, as in

the case of Rosalind's incongruity, the total is more than the sum of

its parts.


1Ibid., p. 171.














The assumption of a disguise, as we have seen, can be revelatory

of character through liberating him from the demands of a restrictive

role or through visual punning. The visual pun, commenting as it does

upon the nature of Rosalind, functions symbolically. The symbolic use

of disguise will be examined more closely with reference to Coriolanus:

his disguise--the very act of its appropriation and the way in which it

is discovered--is emblematic of Coriolanus' nature.

The long dramatic tradition of significant costuming which is be-

hind Shakespeare has already been discussed, in Chapter I, and has pre-

pared the way for our understanding of Shakespeare's symbolic disguises.

Clothes and costume generally were endowed with significance. But even

more to our point, disguises of various sorts were used symbolically.

The mask, for example, has been alluded to briefly as a means for char-

acterizing which was much used in early drama; as a symbolizing device

which reveals as it conceals, it is analogous to Shakespeare's symbolic

disguises.

Arthur E. Haigh in Attic Theater has found that figures such as

Justice, Persuasion, Deceit, and Jealousy were represented by special

masks in Greek drama.1 These masks quickly, conventionally, and vividly

signified the forces which the characters represented. Green drama,

early English liturgical drama, and Japanese drama are alike in their



1
Arthur Elam Haigh, The Attic Theater (Oxford: The Clarendon
Press, 1898), p. 221.














religious origins and in their symbolic use of disguise.1 Though they

grew independently, these plays originate in religious rites: Greek

from the worship of Dionysus, English from the worship of Christ, and

Japanese from the contemplation of the Shinto deities and Buddha. The

symbolic use of the mask, which reveals as it disguises, is most clearly

seen in the Japanese Noh drama, which is alive and unaltered in present

times. This poetic drama has been "transmitted almost unchanged from
2
one perfected form reached in Kioto in the fifteenth century."2 In the

Noh plays the artifice of the mask becomes a vital stylistic element

which gives precision and intensification to the character. Masks are

used not for quick identification but for transmitting through a tradi-

tionally sanctioned form, a statement which achieves tremendous anima-

tion. In a nation which has remained homogeneous and static until recent

years these artifacts are significant forms invested with life. It is a

Noh saying that, "The heart is the form."3 A species of dramatic life

strikingly similar to that which persists in Japan was once felt in the

tradition to which Shakespeare belonged.

Symbolistic disguise appears in English drama before Shakespeare.

In Skelton's Magnificence disguise is used symbolically. For the most

part, the hero mistakes vice for virtue simply because wicked characters


BErnest Fenollosa and Ezra Pound, 'Noh' or Accomplishment: A Study
of the Classical Sate of Japan (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1916),
p. 110.
2Ibid., p. 102.

3Ibid., p. 52.














change their names--Fancy for Largess, Crafty Conveyance for Sure Sur-

veyance, Cloaked Collusion for Sober Sadness. In one instance, however,

disguise, imbued with symbolic denotation, augments the change of name:

Cloaked Collusion wears some sort of vestment or priestly garment to

represent Sober Sadness.

An advance in the attempt to represent character through emble-

matic disguises is noted by Freeburg. In Sir David Lyndesay's Satire of

the Three Estates Flattery, Falsehood, and Deceit change their names to

Devotion, Sapience, and Discretion; but in addition all three of these
1
vices put on the costume of friars.

Early in the play The Three Ladies of London, a late morality,

Dissimulation comes upon the scene, "having on a farmer's long coat and

a cap, and his poll and beard painted motley."2 It is of significance

that Dissimulation appears as a farmer and that he is unwilling to risk

the chance of being taken too literally, as a mere farmer or as a farmer

arbitrarily. He explains himself to his audience:

My name is dissimulation, and no base name I bear
For my outward effects my inward zeal do declare;3

Dissimulation thus proclaims his zeal as similar to that of the industri-

ous farmer. He is soon followed by Simplicity as a miller and Fraud as a

ruffian.


1
Freeburg, p. 19.

2R. W., The Three Ladies of London, 1584, ed. W. Carew Hazlitt,
Old English Plays (London: Reeves and Turner, 1874), p. 251.

3bid., p. 252.














The pattern that these disguises follow is a carry-over of medieval

allegorizing--allegorizing for the purpose of revealing an abstraction of

some sort, a moral truth or a particular vice, just as, in Grosser's dis-

cussion of the double image, one image was regarded as existing for the

sake of the other. The abstraction of the medieval drama and the dis-

guise of Shakespeare are both modes of allegorizing; whereas the medieval

abstraction has the effect of simplifying character, to the point where

it is summed up in a single word--Folly, Flattery, Deceit--Shakespeare's

disguise often has the effect of presenting new facets of an individual

character (as in the case of Rosalind), or, if we look at it with an ap-

petite for generality, we find that the general proposition is far from

that which will fit in the compass of a single noun.

Shakespeare uses disguise metaphorically, as a spectacle to repre-

sent some character trait, something going on within a character. The

assumption of disguise, the way it is employed, or the way in which it

is recognized may offer indirect statements regarding character. In

Coriolanus the spectacle of disguise has meaning that actually extends

beyond matters of character, inasmuch as Coriolanus and his political

import is the continual focus of the play. All is subordinate to it--

subsidiary characters, the background of family and populace--all func-

tioning as choric echoes or commentaries on the problem of Coriolanus.

In Coriolanus we find that disguise is used partly as it was in

Henry V, for the purpose of putting a character in another role tempo-

rarily to accentuate some quality about him. After Coriolanus is

banished from Rome and has taken leave of his family, he disguises














himself as a beggar and proceeds to Antium to join forces with his

rival, Aufidius, against Rome. There is a very practical reason for

Coriolanus' assuming this disguise. He naturally would not wish to

risk being identified and perhaps assaulted by his former enemies, be-

fore he has an opportunity to declare his friendly intentions.

Beyond this practical reason for the disguise, the warrior's

concealment has ironic implications with regard to the characterization

of Coriolanus that is developed throughout the play.

An explanation of these ironic overtones necessitates a review

of the characterization and actions of the central figure, Coriolanus.

The play is concerned with the downfall of an individual dominated by

driving pride and a straining after superhuman standards. His pride

and standards are so lofty that even praise is despicable to him. Plac-

ing Coriolanus in an atmosphere of social and political opposition,

Shakespeare presents a man whose understanding of his relation to Rome

will not allow him to do the things necessary to acquire the title which

will satisfy his personal pride; yet when he tries to compromise with his

nature, when he humbles himself to be something he despises, he can no

longer function as a whole person. His destiny is enacted against a

setting of opposition, one which brings to a critical test Coriolanus'

ability to compromise with his nature--to debase himself in his own

eyes by appearing before the commoners and displaying his wounds in order

to receive the consulship. After an agonizing conflict as to whether or

not he can force himself to this humiliating posture, Coriolanus lays

aside his convictions of nobility and attempts to fulfill the role which














his family and political associates press upon him. Appearing before

the people, Coriolanus holds up just so long; at last his temper and

characteristic hatred of the populace break through. As a result, he

is banished from Rome.

Inappropriate clothing, like the setting of social opposition,

provides a means through which we can trace the fall of Coriolanus.

The literal, eye-deceiving disguise situation in Antium represents a

larger--indeed the comprehensive--situation which forces Coriolanus to

assume a pose in conflict with his own self-esteem. Repeatedly Cori-

olanus cannot pretend to be what he isn't; even when he assumes the pose

of a beggar and is therefore treated as one, he cannot maintain this

attitude. In a sense, Coriolanus temperamentally cannot assume a dis-

guise. He cannot do so because he cannot debase himself to the extent

that he despises himself; no matter what the circ-umstances, he must

attempt to remain true to his sense of nobility and personal pride.

His attitudes are always recognized by the populace for what they

are. The play opens with the angry discussion of the mutinous citizens,

who perceive well enough the character of Coriolanus. All agree that

Coriolanus is proud and seeks personal satisfaction in his public life

and that he is constrained this way by his nature and is victimized

thereby. In Act II several officers discuss the inability of Coriolanus

to dissemble. The second officer explains the attitude of the warrior:

Faith there hath been many great men that have flatter'd
the people, who ne'er loved them; and there be many that
they have loved, they know not wherefore; so that, if they
love they know not why, they hate upon no better a ground.














Therefore, for Coriolanus neither to care whether they
love or hate him manifests the true knowledge he has
in their disposition, and out of his noble carelessness,
lets them plainly see't. (II.ii.7-17)

Entreated to display his wounds and receive the consulship,

Coriolanus pleads, "Let me o'erleap that custom; for I cannot/ Put on

the gown, stand naked and entreat them. For my wound's sake to give

their suffrage." (II.ii.140-142) Succumbing to Menenius, Coriolanus

at last appears in the gown of humility. He carries off the pose satis-

factorily, but not without a sense of inner tension through his impos-

ture. He is eager to relieve himself of the dissembling garb.

May I change these garments?
Sic. You may sir.
Cor. That I'll straight do, and, knowing myself again,
Repair to th'Senate-house. (II.iii.153-155)

The tension between appearance and reality is further emphasized

in the speech of Brutus, just after Coriolanus leaves to take off his

gown. "With a proud heart he wore his humble weeds." (II.iii.161)

Projected against this background the disguise spectacle in

Antium provides poetic reinforcement to both the character of Coriolanus

and his situation. By having Coriolanus again try to dissemble in clothes

that conflict with his nature, Shakespeare forces his audience into a

realization, too, that Coriolanus has changed; he is less patient in

carrying through the imposture. A sense of dramatic movement and

accumulating conflict results, vitalizing the action by forcing

comparisons.

As in the previous scene, before the commoners, Coriolanus en-

acts a false role, but only up to a point. A servant at Aufidius'















house asks the beggared Coriolanus to leave.

What have you to do here, fellow?
Pray you, avoid the house.
Cor. Let me but stand;/ I will not hurt your hearth.
3. Serv. What are you?
Cor. A gentleman.
3 Serv. A marv'llous poor one.
Cor. True, so I am.

Considering Coriolanus' hatred and repulsion of common people, he had

to exercise restraint here, in adapting himself to a beggar's role.

But when the servant continues,

Pray you, poor gentleman, take up some
other station; there's no place for you. Pray you,
avoid. Come.

Coriolanus must be himself as he says,

Follow your function,
go and batten on cold bits,

pushing the servant away from him.

Coriolanus' inability to disguise his real nature is also re-

flected in the comments made between these servants, after they discover

who "the beggar" really is. "Yet my mind gave me his clothes made a

false report of him," said the second servant, and "I thought there was

more in him than I could think," said another; these comments reinforce

the suggestion prevalent in the play that Coriolanus' nature, though

proud and untactful, is yet fearfully admirable and propelled by an

almost supernatural spirit that cannot be covered by actions, words,

or disguise. Disguise, then, adds another level through indirect,

poetic means, to the multiple statements made about Coriolanus' nature

and his fall. The disguise episode is in itself a symbol of something














that the whole play is involved in demonstrating.

When disguise is conceived thus metaphorically or for purposes

of character revelation, literal plausibility of the disguise is ir-

relevant. Shakespeare has too frequently been criticized on the basis

of the implausibility of his disguises or the inconsistency between

the complexity of the disguise and the ease with which it is discerned,

and so forth. This kind of criticism arises, it seems, from too prosaic

an approach to the artifices of Shakespeare. Everyone familiar with

Shakespeare's drama can recall many instances of what Aristotle so

aptly labels probable impossibilities. Carefully leading his audience

from the real to the poetically possible, Shakespeare creates a plausible

world and one which Elizabethans grew up on, so to speak. The whole

theatrical scene--daylight, unimaginative props, male actors, and so

forth--compelled the audience into imaginative habits of perception.

Another factor leading to the acceptance of the artifices was

the tone of consistency in all the improbabilities. Thus if Shakespeare


iThe usefulness of disguise may go beyond interests of characteri-
zation, reaching into matters of theme. Disguise provides the artificial
means for allowing a character to demonstrate some quality that is im-
portant to the general meaning of the play. This will be examined more
intensively in Chapter IV. For a brief example: Viola's love is con-
stant and abiding; it survives apart from direct declarations. Hgw arc
we to know then of the nature of her love, which differs so from that of
the Duke and Olivia? Through the spectacle of disguise. Through the
double talk permitted by disguise Viola can both conceal and disclose her
love. Her disguise is a reminder to the audience of her nature. It is
rather like a sign worn by the morality actor, because Viola's presence
on the stage is a constant referent to her meaning. Kent, in King Lear,
functions similarly. Through disguise the exiled Kent can return as a
servant to Lear; thus he is put in a position in which his loyalty and
humility can be exercised. His presence on the stage keeps Lear's folly
in remembrance. His disguise permits the indirect assertion of a quality














presents a character disguised in a merely physically unconvincing dis-

guise, the disguise is not destined to dramatic ineffectiveness, if the

total atmosphere of the play testifies to an unabashed invitation to ac-

cept it as the acknowledged artifice.

Disguise is more easily taken as a sort of spectacle, as emblematic,

if other artifices or stylizations support this meaning. The Greek mask

and the Noh mask depend for their effectiveness upon an established atmos-

phere of stylized and dignified, almost liturgical representation. Cori-

olanus shares some of this atmosphere of the Greek spectacle through the

choric-like public, the entreaties of the family, and so forth.

Setting, for example, may combine with disguise in the creation

of an imaginatively true artifice. In As You Like It, as we have seen,

it is possible through disguise to isolate the qualities in Rosalind that

would be difficult to present otherwise, without sacrificing her at-

tractive feminine quality. Rosalind in disguise has a structural func-

tion that is similar to the function of the Forest of Arden setting in that

both disguise and setting facilitate the simultaneous presentation .of

disparate ideas. It is quite apparent that Shakespeare's Forest of

Arden, made up as it is out of heterogeneous elements, established the

improbable but poetically plausible setting necessary to the suspension

of one's disbelief. It serves as a non-realistic, artificial arrange-

ment through which love and ways of life can be seen unobstructed by


that is essential to the meaning of the play. Loyalty and disloyalty,
pride and humility are inescapable themes of King Lear. Chapter V will
pursue these matters further.















distracting details of the familiar world. Rosalind, similarly, is

freed by disguise from many of the restrictions imposed by real life

upon the feminine role.

Shakespeare takes liberties with disguise and setting that need

not be disturbing. It might be distressing to notice that the ease

with which disguises are recognized does not always depend upon the

concealing ability of the disguise. Although Henry V is able to com-

pletely conceal his regal personage by wrapping Erpingham's cloak about

his shoulder, Bottom, who is completely buried beneath the head of an

ass, is nevertheless easily recognizable by his fellow craftsmen. Be-

neath the ease or difficulty with which these disguises may be penetrated

lies Shakespeare's over-all purposes in the particular play. Appropriate

to the character himself or to his perceiver, Coriolanus does not succeed

in his disguise; Lear never does recognize the disguised Kent, and various

partial recognition are suggested (Gloucester, and in Cymbeline), in

keeping with the situations and the personalities of the deluded

characters.

Shakespeare's use of disguise was a highly economical expository

device for characterization. As we noted earlier, Freeburg admires a

playwright's dramatic compression through which two persons are repre-

sented in one. He illustrates the value of such duality by citing Chap-

man's Widow's Tears. Chapman found a story containing a dead husband,

a widow, and a soldier lover. He arranged his source in a new, more

economical framework; the husband was merely supposedly dead.but really

disguised as the soldier lover. Thus Chapman "actually eliminated a














character, but multiplied the dramatic results." This sort of dramatic

economy refers to the compression of quantities of characters through

disguise. Also the two characters of the disguised person include the

personality maintained for the companions, who are deceived, and the

other personality for the spectators who are not deceived. The coalescing

personalities are the real and the fictitious. Freeburg values dramatic

economy for the compression of quantities of characters through disguise;

but Shakespeare's disguise upon occasion goes beyond this sort of

economy to the enlargement of qualities of character, as it provides a

new, humanizing dimension in Henry V and a more complete characterization

of Rosalind. Shakespeare's economy not only saves but earns something.

It has the effect of the poetic artifice. Through formal restriction

essential and subtle meanings can best be liberated, as in the pun or in

the repetition of a word which forces one into making comparisons and

contrasts.

The dramatic effectiveness and general usefulness of disguise can

be examined in the light of a more conventional expository device--the

soliloquy or the aside. Opinions on the dramatic value of these devices

vary. William Archer's comment is of special interest because it places

the soliloquy in a relationship with visual expository devices notable

in medieval drama. A drama with soliloquies and asides is like a

picture with inscribed labels issuing from the mouths of the figures.

In that way any bungler can reveal what is passing in the minds of his


Treeburg, p. 15.














personages."1

Arthur C. Sprague's study in tectmiques of exposition commends

the use of the soliloquy enthusiastically; it is first in importance
2
among all the conventions Shakespeare employed for expository purposes.

In soliloquies and asides "character and motive are unfolded, plot and coun-

counterplot set going, events narrated, and the issues of the play made
3
clear." Expressed in these generalities Sprague would seem to be cor-

rect. However, "plot and counterplot" are not always "set going" by

soliloquy. It tends to be a retarding device which may be detrimental

to the movement of any particular play. In Henry V disguised talk and

soliloquy appear side by side, making possible an easy comparison, one

which reveals the advantage of disguise in keeping the plot moving and more

compactly constructed. The extended scenes in which Henry appeared

in disguise served multiple purposes as compared with the limited

function and effect of the soliloquy. Also, soliloquy reveals character--

admittedly--but what if the soliloquizing character is not by nature

strongly reflective? It is improbable that he would express himself

through soliloquy. There must be an appropriateness between the es-

tablished character and his modes of revealing himself.



1William Archer, Play-Making (London: Chapman and Hall Ltd., 1912),
p. 3M7.

2Arthur C. Sprague, Shakespeare and the Audience: A Study in the
Technique of Exposition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935),
p. 62.

Ibid., p. 72.














Harley Granville-Barker offers insights into this problem. He

discusses Shakespeare's use of soliloquy in relation to his increasing

concern with elucidating character. "What he learns to do is so to

vivify and dramatize soliloquy that, the convention accepted, the illu-

sion of character will not be broken."1 "Dramatizing soliloquy" is in

Shakespeare close to techniques of exposition through dual-personality

devices, to be defined and analyzed in Chapter V.

Granville-Barker notes that Shakespeare "as he advances in mastery,

either turns it [soliloquy] to significant account or largely does without

it."2 It is interesting to examine the expository devices employed in

these cases in which Shakespeare eschews soliloquy. In the tragedies

which focus upon introspective character, the soliloquy is used with great

effectiveness and with delicate appropriateness to character and the play's

larger framework of meanings. The very act of soliloquizing as well as

its revealing content is of expository value and is also in keeping with

the plays' tempo and rhythms in Hamlet, Macbeth, and Othello (lago).

Where the heroes are by nature men of action new modes of exposition

must be utilized. One of these modes is disguise.3


1Harley Granville-Barker and G. B. Harrison, A Companion to
Shakespeare Studies (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1937), p. 69.

2Ibid., p. 69.

3A stimulating discussion of the disguise of Rosalind and Viola
appears in a recent short study of Wolfgang Clemen which has come to my
attention since the completion of this present study: Schein und Sein Bei
Shakespeare (Munchen: Akademie der Wissenachaften, 1959). There are
gratifying points of agreement between our contentions. However, whereas
my interest is in the use of disguise for a communication from the drama-
tist to the audience, Clemen--concerned with many aspects of schein and
sein--observes that disguise is a form through which the disguised charac-
ter' own being becomes more painfully conscious to him and through which
he comes to know himself more fully.














CHAPTER IV


MISAPPREHENSION AND MISCONCEPTION IN COMEDIES OF ERRORS


"Our very eyes are, sometimes like our judgments, blind."
(Cymbeline IV.ii.302)


While disguise is useful for purposes of characterization, it may

possess so many correspondences with other dramatic statements in a given

play that it acquires the force of a symbol, the symbol of a concept which

encompasses the meaning of the play. Disguise thereby serves as the most

conspicuous reinforcement for a structure of false ideas or misconcep-

tions upon which the play is built. False physical appearances, that

is misapprehension, together with misunderstandings, support a frame-

work of wrong attitudes which must be righted before the dramatic ac-

tion rests. This alliance of misapprehension and misconception can be

found throughout Shakespeare's work--in his drama and poems--and within

the dramatic tradition both before and after Shakespeare's time, as we

shall see. Shakespeare begins to ally misapprehension and misconcep-

tion in the early comedies, but Twelfth Night will be found to express

Shakespeare's developed interest in "blind judgments"--in the relation-

ship between seeing and perceiving.

That Shakespeare was consciously attentive to the alliance

between misapprehension and misunderstanding appears not only in the

organization of his plays but also in explicit statements at all points

in his career. Analogies or juxtapositions of one's perceptions and














one's judgment occur in both the plays and sonnets. Imogen, seeing the

dead body of Cloten but mistrusting her eyesight, says, "Our very eyes

are, sometimes like our judgments, blind," (Cymbeline IV.ii.302) while

in Henry V mention is made of young maids, who are "blind though they

have their eyes." (Henry V V.ii.336) Much use is made of the analogy

between perceiving and conceiving in the sonnets, the most extensive

use being found in sonnet 73, "That time of year thou mayst in me be-

hold." The sonnet obviously breaks into three sections, each involving

imagery that intensifies the transiency of the speaker's life and the

imminence of his death. Each image concerns a visually perceived ob-

ject, clearly portrayed as such: "That time of year thou mayst in me

behold"; "In me thou see'st the twilight of such day"; "In me thou

see'st the glowing of such fires"; and finally, in summation, "this

thou perceiv'st, which makes thy love more strong,/ To love that well

which thou must leave ere long."

In several of the sonnets Shakespeare's "love-is-blind" interest

crops up. Again, seeing falsely is inextricably bound together with

judging falsely. In sonnet 137 the writer laments,

Thou blind fool, Love, what dost thou to mine eyes
That they behold, and see not what they see?

Why of eyes' falsehood hast thou forged hooks,
Whereto the judgment of my heart is tied?

The false perspective of love is again behind the plaintive cry of

sonnet 148:


0 me, what eyes hath Love put in my head,
Which have no correspondence with true sight!














The accusation and queries recur in sonnet 150.

The dramatic tradition behind Elizabethan drama also exemplifies

the viewing of false appearance and false attitudes together. Although

the secular, Plautine comedies of errors depended entirely upon mis-

taken physical appearances for their complication and denouement,

earlier dramatic use of disguise aligned misunderstanding with misap-

prehension. For example, in Euripides' Bacchae,the god disguises him-

self as a mortal; the disguise is effective and the king treats him with

contempt. The king is both unaware of the true physical identity of

the disguised Bacchus and skeptical of the very existence of the diety.

Guilty of the sin of hubris, the king exults in his own eminence.- The

error of his thinking is made dramatically effective through the visu-

ally perceived spectacle--the ironic presence of the disguised god.

In other religiously oriented drama, disguise is also symbolic.

As we have seen in Chapter III, the morality play tradition gradually

linked false physical appearance with mentally undiscerned qualities

or false attitudes. At first the well-intending "everyman" was con-

fused in his moral discernment because of impersonators. In Magnifi-

cence it was just as difficult to distinguish between wrong and right

as between Counterfeit Countenaunce and his impersonation--Good De-

meyaunce. Vices not only dissembled through the assumption of false

names but through false appearances: in keeping with a late medieval

trend in ecclesiastical satire, the garb usually employed for the mas-

querade of Vice was that of the friar, as in Satire of the Three Es-

tates. Gradually the false appearances became more individual and














specific. In The Marriage of Wit and Wisdom Idleness is not always

recognized as such, whether conceptually or perceptually, because he

appears as a doctor, beggar, priest, and so forth. In all these cases,

the misapprehension of a disguised person exists as a commentary upon

the inscrutability of moral qualities.

That this coupling of misapprehension and misconception is not

to be relegated to a merely historical interest but is almost inevitable

in a drama that scrutinizes the human predicament is clear. Religious

and moral symbolistic disguise appears also in modern drama. The ten-

dency to equate perceptual blindness of some sort to conceptual blind-

ness is deep-rooted and ubiquitous. Charles Rann Kennedy's The

Servant. in the House, a poetic drama of the early twentieth century,

in the manner of Ibsen, involves the disguise of Manson, who poses as

the new servant in the house of his brother, a Vicar. Despite their

faqades of righteousness, the vicar and his associates are corrupt and

selfish, specifically in their program for building a new church.

Manson, who is not only the long absent brother but actually God in-

carnate, effects a reform of the church and the Vicar's household,

which necessitates a thorough cleaning of the putrid drains and rotten

foundations of the old church. Repellent in his capacity as a begrimed

sewage worker, he is nevertheless finally recognized for the beauty and

integrity that underlie mere outward appearance. Outward appearance is

proved to be deceiving both in disguised virtue (Manson) and disguised

evil (the Vicar). Needless to say, the relationship between error and














deceptive physical appearance is fundamental to the full impact of the

play's didactic purpose.

Forces of evil are also, in modern drama,-by this means repre-

sented as difficult to discern. Whereas it is primarily God who is in-

scrutable in Kennedy's play, the Devil is the illusive character in

Ferenc Molnar's The Devil. The inability to recognize evil is in the

course of the action rapidly equated with the inability of the charac-

ters to recognize Dr. Miller, who is actually the Devil.

The drama of the Elizabethans, like that of Plautus, employed

mistaken identity most conspicuously for the comic complication of

plot. In The Comedy of Errors we do not have to meditate for a single

moment over the inability of the two Dromios to distinguish their

masters. Dromio of Ephesus, for example, simply could not distinguish

his master, Antipholus of Ephesus and his identical twin. Dromio was

far too busy carrying messages and dodging a thrashing to wonder

whether his inability to distinguish his "true" master symbolized his

inability to discern between God and the Devil. Matters of false per-

ception and comical, erroneous actions dominate the plays growing from

the Plautine tradition. Matters of theme and characterization only

faintly intrude into the low comedy of situation.

Twelfth Night is the outstanding example in Shakespeare's drama

of the combination of the mistaken identity framework with his mature

dramatic interests, involving indirect means to explore truth--mistaken

ideas as a means of canvassing the nature of truth in a specific situa-

tion. The success of his mature use of disguise is best seen when we














compare Twelfth Night with his earlier comedies: The Comedy of Errors,

Love's Labour's Lost, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, and A Midsummer

Night's Dream--all of which depend upon mistaken identity and indicate

SShakespeare's growing concern with integrating misapprehension and

misconception.

The Comedy of Errors is entirely dependent on mistaken identity

for its plot construction. And in this play, as indeed in the other

three plays mentioned above, mistaken identity is used more extensively

than in any known sources. Shakespeare explores the comic effect of

disguise, doubling the use of mistaken identity over Plautus. In no

other play, however, does Shakespeare use mistaken identity apart from

some elements of a theme based upon misunderstanding or misconception.

a Disguise begins to serve new interests in Love's Labour's Lost.

It is used sparingly for comic complication. The play is not a comedy

of situation, but a comedy of wit that develops a theme. The action is

neither initiated nor resolved through the misidentities immanent in

disguise. Disguise is not the basis for the main situation of the plot;

that is, the rejection of women by the would-be scholars of Navarre,

the subsequent betrayal of their scheme, and the final acknowledgment

of their folly. The basic situation involves misconception, not mis-

T apprehension. The scholars have agreed to pursue knowledge to her very

sources, to search for "things hid and barr'd . from common sense."

(I.i.57) In pursuing the depths of truth, however, they must come to

realize that "truth falsely blinds" the eyesight to more fundamental

truths that must be acceded to in practical living. Any ideas of














self-development--learning, specifically--must take into consideration

that we are human beings living in a human world, which consists of

women as well as scholars.

The pact to ignore women is broken by every scholar, for as

Biron concludes,

Young blood doth not obey an old decree.
We cannot cross the cause why we were born;
(V.iii.17-18)

And in another speech,

From women's eyes this doctrine I derive;
They are the ground, the books, the academes
From whence doth spring the true Promethean fire.
(1V.iii.302-304)

The main action of the play involves the change of the scholars

to a more realistic, common sense attitude towards their too idealistic,

scholarly goals. Has this original delusion and the enlightenment that

follows any relation to the elements of disguise appearing in the play?

The relationship between misconception and misapprehension in Love's

Labour's Lost appears to be casual. The folly of the men is somewhat

highlighted, however, by their inability to recognize the disguised

women. By the end of Act IV the men, having discovered that they have

all surreptitiously engaged in amorous schemes, adopt a more practical

and hones attitude toward themselves. Disguise has nothing to do with

thematic revelation and change of character.

In the last act, disguise produces comic effects. Perhaps to

reiterate and vivify the importance of women, the Princess of France

and her retinue have invariably had the edge on the men. This is













especially true here when the men of Navarre, who disguise themselves

as Muscovites to court the women of France, are again following a scheme

which is frustrated by the women. Upon discovery of the "Muscovites'"

approach, the ladies mask themselves and exchange favors to confuse

their identities, thus meeting the oncoming disguise with a disguise

of their own. The men had earlier assumed a pose through which they

pursued truth, finding eventually that "truth falsely blinds"; now

they assume a disguise and find that the real identities of the vari-

ous women lie hidden beneath the misleading, false outward or super-

ficial appearance. Thus they confront a false appearance, while still

acting on the basis of a false assumption. Through the merriment of

the dual disguise, the men again eventually appear ridiculous; and the

folly of their original plan to disregard women is even more emphati-

cally exposed in this disguise situation, because the scholar-lovers

had intended to save face and avoid admitting their imprudence through

their incognito love-making. Their transformation takes a further step;

they must not only acknowledge the necessary existence of women, but

they must be willing to reveal themselves for what they are.

Disguise and theme thus come into common focus even in Shake-

speare's early drama and indicate his developing concern in probing

the surfaces of appearance and assumption. In Love's Labour's Lost, a

play of wit, double entendres, and the love chase, disguise is not

merely an agent of comic complication; it has a function that relates

to something outside itself. In its gesture towards bringing theme

and disguise into some sort of focus, Love's Labour's Lost prefigures













Shakespeare's more mature, thoroughgoing accomplishment in Twelfth

Night.

Shakespeare first uses the disguised female page--a contribu-

tion of Italian comedy--in The Two Gentlemen of Verona. As in Love's

Labour's Lost, Shakespeare is interested in mistaken identity not

merely as the provocation for a comic situation, but as it is instru-

mental in the exploration of a theme. Accordingly, as Freeburg notes,

Shakespeare's method in this play varies significantly from that of

the Italian dramatists. The disguise of Julia as a man is not, for

example, counterbalanced by the disguise of Proteus as a woman--that

would have been the Italian way. Shakespeare's method, as we shall see,

is indicative of his interest in focusing attention upon the character

of the disguised female--compare also Rosalind and Viola--rather than

in producing great complexity of plot.

Disguise in The Two Gentlemen of Verona is put to serious use

in the exploration of loyalty and disloyalty in friendship and love--

loyalty as it is embodied in Julia, who faithfully loves Proteus, and

disloyalty, in Proteus. After Proteus is sent by his father to Milan,

Julia follows him, disguised as the page, Sebastian, and is instrumental

in advancing his love suit with Silvia. Silvia, however, was first

T claimed as lover by Valentine, friend of Proteus. Proteus emerges,

then, as an unfaithful friend and lover.

The constant and patient love of Julia, which is antithetical to


Treeburg, p. 70.














the fickle love of Proteus, in evident through the speech and action

allowed her because of disguise, as Proteus' page. Her frequent

presence, ostensibly as a page though she is really herself, serves

as a constant reminder of her rights and the quality of her love, both

of which provide a perspective that diminishes Proteus. While thus

disguised, Julia is a first-hand witness of his infidelity; yet she re-

mains true to Proteus and to an ideal of loyalty held also by Valentine

and Silvia--one by which Proteus himself finally acts. Up to this

point Proteus is blind both to the allegiance he owes Julia and to

her identity when she is disguised. He is corrected on both accounts.

Because of the relationship between mistaken appearances and

mistaken affection and the similarity between Julia and her situation

and Viola and hers, The Two Gentlemen of Verona can be regarded, to-

gether with The Comedy of Errors and Love's Labour's Lost, as elemental

in the creation of Twelfth Night.

Shakespeare explores the connections between mistaken identity

and mistaken affection in another early comedy, A Midsummer Night's

Dream. In this play no formal elements of disguise appear, although

it is akin to the original comedy of situation based on mistaken iden-

tity. The characters are less troubled by misleading physical appear-

ance than by mistaken affections. The original spirit of the mistaken

identity play prevails: a web of complication and a general atmosphere

of "things not being what they seem to be" uiite the two types of

comedy. The action of A Midsummer Night's Dream is similar to that














of Twelfth Night insofar as both plays begin with characters who have

false objects of affection and end with the union of true levers.

An interpretation of Twelfth Night based upon its mistaken

identities and mistaken attitudes does more justice to the play than

the more usual interpretations of the meaning of the whole play. In-

terpretations of Twelfth Night tend towards one of two extremes: the

play is taken as a loosely constructed farce or as a serious study of

social struggle--or, at any rate, as a play whose meaning is dependent

upon topical references. A program from a recent enactment of the play

gives the following description:

It [Twelfth Night] is a hodgepodge of foolishness, put
together for our entertainment, seasoned with high
comedy, low comedy, good humor, bad puns, roistering
rowdyism, gentle dignity, fine poetry, false courage,
and appalling inconsistency. It has no more serious
intent than a musical comedy or extravaganza. .. .1

The same play that provoked this statement stimulated another

critic, John Draper, to say that Twelfth Night is "the comedy of the

social struggles of the time"; it is "Shakespeare's play of social

security."2 The unity of the play--so runs this argument--resides

in a search, on various planes, for security. To add weight to his

argument, Draper de-emphasizes qualities that savor of romance. Twelfth

Night is most frequently regarded as a play uf love; Draper remonstrates:


1Taken from a program used for a University of Connecticut
production of Twelfth Night at Storrs, Connecticut, 1959.

2John W. Draper, The Twelfth Night of Shakespeare's Audience
(Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1950), p. 250.














But, if love were the theme, would not at least one of
these courtships, as in Much Ado, follow normal Eliza-
bethan convention? But in each case, the girl, unaided
and unadvised, chooses the man, an unusual procedurein
actual Elizabethan life. In Twelfth Night neither father
nor brother nor next of kin bestows the hand of Viola,
Maria, or Olivia.1

Draper's assumed premise--that a play of love is a play involving

conventional courtship--is disputable. Furthermore, Viola, the romantic

heroine in the love chases, does not "unaided . choose the man." The

quality of her constant, passive and altruistic love to the Duke, only

indirectly revealed, is in sharp contrast to the ill-founded, overly

verbal and assertive passion of Olivia for her lover.

Emphasizing the realistic problem of attaining social security,

Draper also tones down the "poetic cast" and the "etherial" atmosphere

of the play.2 Illyria is tied down to the "then and there" as closely

as Draper can tie it,but the very attempt to give the setting and ac-

tion of the play a temporal and topical framework helps to accentuate

the illusiveness and "what-you-will" atmosphere permeating Twelfth

Night.

Leslie Hotson's study, The First Night of Twelfth Night, con-

structs a possible first performance of the play and suggests several

topical allusions. Hotson vividly pieces together what he concludes to

be the scene of this first performance, depending largely upon actual

1
Ibid., pp. 247-248.

21bid., p. 214.














accounts of the Twelfth Night festivities for his re-creation. How-

ever to explain the play topically--even if we were to grant Hotson

success in his attempt--does not do full justice to its meaning. The

perennial success of Twelfth Night has obviously been dependent not

upon occasional allusions but upon basic structures of universal oc-

currence, common to human experience apart from conditions of time and

place. These basic structures are those of misidentity and misunder-

standing, which account for all the complication of the play.

False love and true love, delusion and disguise, inconstancy

and constancy dominate the play and impose a sense of structure upon

the variety of incidents making up Twelfth Night. The play is typi-

cal of Shakespeare comedy in the respect that it is about love. The

unity of the play, however, does not--indeed, cannot--reside merely

in this interest, however central it is: love here is subsumed into

the larger design and becomes only the most conspicuous expression

of the delusion-reality theme. The play's concern with ways of look-

ing at love is part of the pervasive preoccupation with false appear-

ances and false ideas.

Disguise in Twelfth Night has a metaphorical function in the

characterization of Viola and in the over-all structure of the play;


1With a viewpoint similar to my own Joseph H. Summers' "The
Masks of Twelfth Night," The University of Kansas City Review, II
(Autumn, 1955), 25-32, is concerned with the extensive mask-like quality
of various poses assumed by the characters. That is, they have "masks."
We laugh at those who don't see the mask they have assumed. Characters
are explicated in terms of their poses; Malvolio and Sir Andrew, for ex-
ample, "fail to perceive the comic gaps between themselves and their
ideal roles."




Full Text

PAGE 1

SEEING AND PERCEIVING: A STUDY OF THE USE OF DISGUISED PERSONS AND WISE FOOLS IN SHAKESPEARE By EMILY BROWN STANLEY A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNQL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA June, I960

PAGE 2

Mic 60-5147 STANLEY, Emily Brown. SEEING AND PERCEIVING: A STUDY OF THE USE OF DISGUISED PERSONS AND WISE FOOLS IN SHAKESPEARE. The University of Florida, Ph.D., 1960 Language and Literature, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan iiiiiiiii™mi^'^^°''''''°'''°* 3 1262 08666 443 9

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To the manbers of ray committee, Professors T. Walter Herbert, Chairman, Ants Oras, Frederick W. Conner, Stephen F. Fogle, and George R. Bartlett, I wish to express my sincere thanlcs. I am especially grateful to my chairman for his wise and patient counsel, I am indebted to Maurice Grosser for his phrase "visual pun," which I have extended to includ.e the function of disguised characters such as Rosalind, and to H. B. Parkes for his phrase "the double vision of the Elizabethans"; I have applied to a different context this concept which he employed in order to define the tension existing between a rather vague religious and political optimism and the emerging naturalistic attitude. I am indebted also to Professor Moody Prior of Northwestern University for stimulating ray interest in Shakespeare's disguises. To the library staffs of the University of Florida and Yale University mj' appreciation is due. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude for the stipends received from the University of Florida which have made my graduate study possible. ii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF COHTEKTS CHAPTER P^E Introduction 1 I Disguise and Elizabethan Costume 1? II The Eliaatethan Double Vision 35 III Character Depth Through Disguise . 50 IV Misapprehension and Misconception in Comedies of Errors &k V Disguise in a Tragedy of Errors 123 VI Disguise and the Shalcespearean Perspective. . . . l^k Bibliography l82 ill

PAGE 5

IMTRGDUCTION TLiat the disguised per8on--one whose exterior aspect is misleading—was used in Shakespeare for purposes such as plot structure and for the appeal of deception and verbal irony has been widely recognized. That disguise serves also in ways even more vital to the play's import is the proposal of this present study. The device will be found to have a far wider relevance to the structure of the play than merely as a contrivance to produce a beginning and a conclusion. Disguise will be foitnd to constitute an expression of Shakespeare's characteristic ways of looking at things— at a character or an incident or a concept— both as he shared in the Elizabethan view of nature and as he participated in the development of the more complex vision \diich puts him in company with Donne and other articulate voices of the seventeenth century. Disguise will appear as Shakespeare's way of expressing, not only in comedy but in more sober contexts, the more Inclusive perspectives observable in the thought and art of his time. Disguise emerges as a mode of oblique dramatic statement, oblique but productive of the economy that is paradoxically the effect of poetic artifice. At its economical best, disguise enlarges the statement of character and becomes a mode of meaning in a play. Specifically, it is one of the ways in which he conveys the proposition that truth may lie not in one of two apparently Tlhe word "perspective" in this study is used consistently to mean a conceptual point of view, a way of observing. More colloquially, it means a way of looking at things. The word as we use it, however, does not involve the aspect of a natural object, as it appears to the eye, but a mental object.

PAGE 6

I contradictory alternatives but in the consequence of their mutual dependence . V/hether Shakespeare's disguises reasonably justify these findings is dependent, of course, upon the possibility of Shakespeare's having had at his disposal these uses of disguise as part of his dramatic vocabulary and upon the probability that an Elizabethan audience would have been responsive to the meanings. The special significance of his masquerading character, which will not be broached directly until Chapter III, will be there more readily intelligible if we first remind ovirselves of those modes of expression and interpretation current in the Elizabethan period — modes through which disguise might naturally arouse a degree of attention it would not so inevitably elicit from a modern audience. This preliminary discussion --the province of Chapters I and II— will provide for the modern reader the framework in which that earlier audience could take disguise as a symbol, either representing some aspect of a character or standing as the epitome of a situation whose scope may encompass a character's mistakes in Judging as well as his mistakes in perceiving persons and objects. Thus, a Justification for conceiving disguise as the visual statement of a ftondamental issue of a play will be dewonstrated by appeal to the thinking of the period: there la historical precedent for our construing disguise as the vehicle of a complex statement. But even before we proceed to the business of Chapters I and II it will be helpful to examine more closely the ways in which disgiiise has already been investigated by the critics who have most directly and

PAGE 7

conspicuously attended to disguise in Shakespeare: Victor Oscar Freebiurg in Disguise Plots in Elizabethan Drama (1915);-'P. V. Kreider in "The Mechanics of Disguise in Shakespeare's Plays" (193^); John W. Draper 3 in "Mistaken Identities in Shakespeare's Comedies" (193^); and John V. Curry in Deception in Elizabethan Comedy (1955). We shall briefly examine the approaches of these earlier treatments both for the purpose of canvassing! the values of Shakespeare's disguise which will not be dwelt upon elsewhere in ray study and elLso for the purpose of suggesting limitations in these viewpoints. This review of acholaa'ship will be directed towards a more exacting definition of my ovm approach and objects of study. Becausie so many of the Elizabethan disguises were borrowed from their Plautine and Italian predecessors, they have been studied in rela! 5 tion to their sources. Throvigh such an approach Freeburg"^ not only demonstrates Ithe debt of the Elizabethajas to their predecessors, but he I GuLso establishes the genuine interest of the English in the disguise convention. Where disguise was not already supplied in the sotorce "victor Oscar Freeburg, Disguise Plots in Elizabethan Drama (New York: Coluiribia University Press, I915). 2 P. V. Kreider, "The Mechanics of Disguise in Shakespeare's Plays," Shakespeare Association Bulletin , IX (193^)* I67-I80, •^John W. Draper, "Mistaken Identity in Shakespeare's Comedies," Revue Anglo -Amerioalne !, IX (avril, 193**), 289-297. John V. Curry, Deception in Elizabethan Comedy (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1955). ^Draper also is concerned with Shakespeare's vise of his sources for disguise situations.

PAGE 8

material, it was frequently added by the Elizabethans, indicating the fondness of the English for the tradition. Shakespeare implements plot_ with disguise— in King Lear , The Winter's Tale , Much Ado About Nothing , and Measure for Measure , for example. Shakespeare's use of his sources, with respect to disguise, has served as one of Freeburg's points of departiire for examining the dramatist's technique. In comparison to its source, ( The Taming of A Shrew) Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew provides motivation for disguise. In A Shrew Aurelius, a nobleman in love with Philema, maaquerades as a son of a rich merchant, but, as Freebujg rightly observes, there seems to be no reason for assuming this disguise, nor for the servant's 2 assuming a pose as his master. 14y purpose in later chapters is not to envunerate these many changes of or additions to the sources. However, mention will be made of Shakespeare's addition of disguise to Ki ng Lear and the de-eraphasis of the twin Sebastian in Twelfth Night inasmuch as both the addition and the de-emphasis are means of focusing attention upon aspects of the character of Lear and Viola vhich it is my purpose to discuss. A conspicuous aspect of disguise is deception. Shakespeare's disguises have been approached through the perspective of Elizabethan fondness for deception; Curry maintains its btroug appeal for the whether borrowed or added, "disguise occurs with important dramatic function in more than two hundred extant plays," according to Freeburg, p. 1, Twenty-five of Shakespeare's plays employ disguise, ^Ibid,, p, 180.

PAGE 9

Elizabethan audience. Disguise Is thus set Into a framework of the trickery and duplicity vrtilch flourished from Roister Dolster and Gammer Gurton's Needle to the more verbal, sophisticated level of Jonsonlan Intrigue and counter -Intrigue. The Imposter, duper, and rogue were continual c'>Jects of delight to the dramatist and theater-goer, and the disguised character was an Important member of this assemblage, Curry pursues his Interest In disguise as an agent of deception by extensively cataloguing the variety of motives behind the use of disguise in Elizabethan comedyj there are: female pages; boys, who for differing reasons dress as women; spies; lovers in disguise; and rogues in mult 1 -disguise. Disguise follows its dramatic tradition In functioning primarily as the basic situation for the plot, and it has attracted critical attention largely because of this. The most complete study, the early twentieth century work of Freeburg, is concerned mainly with Shakespeare's varied techniques of initiating and resolving action through the use of disguise. Disguise proved to be a device which offered the Elizabethan dramatist an inexhaustible source of situations for plot structure. Capable of unlimited variation and ingenious manipulation, the convention was fully exploited, a fact attested to by the long lists of disguise types and plots compiled in the study of Freeburg and also in that of Curry. Shakespeare's departure from the traditional use as simply the compllcator of a comic plot Is evident. Only in his early plays does Shakespeare tise disguise extensively for plot structure. Traditionally, disguise, and mistaken identity generally, was most

PAGE 10

widely employed for comic plot structure. Especially in Plautus the motif of mistaken identity, based on identical twins and disguise, is extensively drawn upon and becomes a part of the developing comic tradition in Renaissance drama. A study of Shakespeare's sovirces reveals that the early comedies, The Comedy of Errors , Love's Labour's Lost , The Two Gentlemen of Verona, and A Midsummer Night's Dream all employ more instances of mistaken identity than any knwn sources of the plays 1 in question. When Shakespeare is interested in farce and mere fortuitous coincidence, he throws himself into it completely, actually doubling the use of mistaken identity in The Comedy of Errors over Plautus 's use, clearly casting aside all thought of convincing realism or meaning. The use of mistaken twins as the backbone of comedy has limited dramatic value even though it generates a variety of situations. Incident is dominant and the necessary emphasis on a confused situation is a deterrent to character analysis and development. The mistakes are fortuitous; disguise is not intentional. In a rapidly moving plot characters do not have time to reflect; they axe primarily actors, not thinkers. Individuality must be minimized to achieve the pawn-like character who is largely acted upon by circumstance. Apart from The Comedy of Errors Shakespeare's interests lie more in characterization — individueuLized choices and responses to circ\mistance--and in thematic implications of the action. By the time of Twelfth Night , where disguise is as necessary to the over-all structiiral framework as in The Comedy of Errors , this T)raper, p. 291.

PAGE 11

convention tindergoes much change, serving heightened dramatic interests, as we shall see in Chapter IV. Further insight into Shakespeare's use of disguise is provided hy other considerations of what Shakespeare for the greater part of his career refrains from doing-what he left to his fellow dramatists, who in many ways elaborated the convention of disguise as it hod appeared in earlier drama. Shakespeare does not experiment with the many possible ingenious adaptations of disguise, and he does not use it for a merely theatrically effective surprise, at the end of a play. Shakespeare is less interested in its novelty and theatricality than in its functionally dramatic and poetic values. Freeburg analyzes the many adaptations and new uses of disguise as the convention passed through the hands of the early dramatists and was "improved" upon by later playwrights. Occasionally the device was used to parody earlier uses. Heywood, Preeburg Judges, perhaps meant to burlesque female page disguises in his Four Prentices of London . The heroine assumes the disguise of a page, thereby serving her lover incognito. The situation develops into a redact io ad absurdum because the page had allegedly been her lover's bedfellow for a year, without his discovering her Identity or sex I The mult i -disguise was obviously fashionable, reaching Its prominence in the Jacobean drama after Shakespeare. A single character "Freeburg, p. 67. ^Ibid., p. I2U.

PAGE 12

assuraee many different disguises during the action of the play. In the subplot of Jonson's Every Man in His Humour , it will be remembered, Brainwood dissembles as (l) an old soldier, (2) Justice Clement's man, and (3) a City Sergeant. The repeated and rapid changes of costume keep the action shifting constantly and developing episodically. The multi-disguise had little dramatic value; as William Lawrence, after studying examples of the multi -disguise, has concluded: "At best, the type is theatrically effective, never dramatically convincing." Shakespeare was evidently interested in this sort of theatrical spectacle only in one bitter sequence in King Lear . \Vhat Freeburg labels "retro-disguise" becomes an amusing variation on an old theme. Retro -disguise involves a second disguise; thus ironically the correct sex of the dissimulator is righted. That is, a woman disguised as a man may assume a second, supposedly real disguise, as a woman. Heywood in The Wise Woman of Hogsdon disguised his heroine Luce as a page and then allowed some deceived person, the Wise Woman of Hogsdon, to retro-disguise her as a lady, thereby achieving a double complication. The retro-disguise leads up to a marriage supposedly farcical, but eventually real, Shakespeare, attentive to characterization and theme, bypasses the temptations of this type of ingenuity. Shakespeare also bypasses an exclusively English contribution to the disguise convention: the surprise disguise, such as Jonson's Epicene depends upon. In the conventional disguise plot the character who was "William J, Lawrence, Pre -Restoration Stage Studies (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927), p, 292.

PAGE 13

to disguise himself always toM the avidience of his Intention, following the tradition established by Aristophanes' Acharnians ."^ About to assume a distjaise, Dicaeopolis asks of the chorus: "Permit rae, there 2 fore, before I speak to dress in the manner most likely to draw pity." And shortly thereafter he discusses with Euripides all the details of his disguise. Similarly, in Shakespeare's drama, either by monologue or discussion with a confidant, the intention and nature of the disguise is revealed, enabling the audience to recognize the pretender immediately upon his appearance. 3 Since we vfill concentrate in this study upon examining Shakespeare's disguises for what they reveal to the audience about character or situation, it is important to note that Shakespeare always made sure his axjdience was aware of any masquerading. Contrary to the practice of his fellow dramatists, it is never the purpose of a Shakespeare disgiiise to mystify or deceive and later 3\irprise the audience. Kiis is the main point of P. V. Kreider's examination of Shakespeare's disguises to which we have earlier alluded: the audience is alwerys^in on the pose. Novelty is again the keynote of disguise plays whose interest grows out of the fact that characters who imagine themselves or other characters to be disguised, are not. In Tomkis's Albumazar a farmer, Trincalo, imagines himself in disguise though there has been no change "Treeburg, p. 12. ^Aristophanes, Achornians, Aristophanes: The Eleven Comedies , ed. Jean de Bosschere (New York: Horace Liver ight, 1925), p. 105 . ^reeburg, p. 12.

PAGE 14

10 of appearance. He has been made to believe he has been magically transformed. "I am," he says, "choicely neate in my cloathes, valiant, aad extreme witty." (ll.l) He is a sort of Malvolio, without a change of costume, who regards himself an attractive lover and acts in accord with the delusion. In Volpone Lady WouM-Be sees her husband with a j'oung man and is quick to imagine that the companion is a courtesan disguised. Suspicion of disguise where there is none amounts almost to burlesque in Fletcher's Honest Man's Fortune . As the convention grows older, as it becomes employed with increas ing ingenuity, disguise also is used more incidentally and without much dramaturgic skill, as in Middleton and Dekker's Honest Whore (Part I), where George, a servant, masquerades as his master, Candido, to surprise 3 his employer as he returns home. (l.vii) Another interest of Freeburg, which, though it conspicuously belongs to Shakespeare, will not be a part of this present study, is the value of disguise foi verbal irony. Disguise is a valuable appropriation for a dramatist such as Shakespeare who is alive to the impact of irony. The dialogue of a disguised person is like that of a sane man who simalates incoherency, or of a wise man pretending foolishness — or that of any pretender— it creates an atmosphere of dramatic tension and T^homas Tomkis, Albumazar ; A Comedy {1615), ed. Hugh G. Dick ( University of California Publications in English, Vol. 13; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 19hk), p. 90. %his has been noticed by Freeburg, p. 97. Thomas Middleton and Thomas Dekker, Honest Whore (l6(A-), II, Dekker's Dramatic Works , (London: John Pearson, lb73), kf ff .

PAGE 15

11 theatricELLly effective double meaning. This tension within the play is, of course, satisfying to the audience. It is appealing to the theatergoer to have knowledge about the disguised character that is superior to the awareness of the deluded characters. Shakespeare takes excellent advantage of disguise for subtle dialogue—double meanings and veiled allusions — throughout his disguise plays. In The Two Gentlemen of Verona Julia, as a page, tells Silvia that she knows Jiilia almost as well as herself. Scenes in which the disguised heroine appears with her beloved are fruitful grounds for irony. Viola tells the Duke that she will never love any woman, that, in fact, she will never love anybody but her master. She explains further: My father had a daughter lov'd a man. As it might he, perhaps, were I a woman, I shovLLd your lordship, -, ( Twelfth Might . II, iv. 110-112) Rosalind, in disguise, also Indvilges In this sport. Reviving from a Bvroon, she insists it was coxinterfeited: Oliver then suggests, "Well then, take a good heart and counterfeit to be a man," Rosalind explains "So I do. But, i'faith, I should have been a woman by right," ( As You Like It , IV, iii. 17^-177) Here, irony depends upon ambiguous language used by the character ignorant of the true situation as well as that used with knowledge and intent by the disguised character, Rosalind. ^William Allan Neilson and Charles Jarvis Hill (eds.). The Complete Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare (Cambridge: Houghton Mifflin Company, 19ii-2). All subsequent citations from Shakespeare will be from this text.

PAGE 16

12 Previous stvidles of disguise, while they have contrihuted much, have their limitations and, in at least one point, have propagated false judgments. A limitation of Preeburg, and to a lesser degree his follower, Curry, inheres in his over -admiration of the well-constructed, Aristotelian plot. Evaluating the function of disguise in Shakespeare's plays, Freeburg has applied the touchstone of the model Aristotelian plot with its cohesive beginning, middle, and end. Disguise, of course, is traditionally associated with a comic confusion of identity, throiigh which the plot is first set in motion and eventually brought to rest; and it functions commendably, according to Freeburg, when it is itself the means of resolving the tension it initially creates and when the dramatist honestly lets his audience in on the disguise trick. Because they regard disguise primarily as the backbone of plot and as an agent of comedy, Freebvirg and Curry misconstrue its effect in a play which has serious, even tragic, overtones. Both critics admire what they consider to be the role of disguise, structurally, in rescuing a play from a tragic ending, Curry concludes that Portia's disguise in The Merchant of Venice terminates the tragic plot and initiates the comedy in vrtiose spirit the play finally rests. And in Measure for Measxire Shakesireare adds disguise to his source in order to bring "tragic complications to a happy resolution."^ If this is the function of disguise in these plays, it is ineffectual. These attitudes, for one thing, Curry, p. ll4-9. T'reeburg, p. l68.

PAGE 17

13 depend upon too clear-cut an antithesis between tragedy and comedy in these plays; each of the plays actually concludes vith nagging ambivalence. Freeburg partially recognizes the value of disguise as an economical device for the "compression" of characters. By this he means that disguise brings together the fictitious and the real: it provides one character for those deluded characters in the play and yet another character for the enlightened audience. Such compression occurs in every instance of disguise. Or, he continues, disgviise may be the means of reducing the number of characters found in a narrative so\irce which contained no disguise. Thus Chapman in VJidow's Tears economically reconstructed his source, which contained a dead husband, a widow, and a soldier lover, by creating a soldier lover who was actueOly the husband — suposedly dead-in disguise. The dramatic thrift involved, in any event, has merely to do with a coalescence of the real and the fictitious personalities, with the resultant reduction of quantities of characters. He stops short of noticing other dramatic effects —mainly the enlarged statement of character, allowed through his assumption of a disguise ~ which are available to the hand of a competent playwright and which will be discussed in Chapter III, There is a particularly common attitude towards Shakespeare's interest in disguise that needs rectifying, Shakespeare is wrongly thought of as having interest in disguise only during the relatively early stages of his dramatic development. This is a conclusion easily drawn by a critic who notices disguise primarily when it is the basic Ibid., p, 15,

PAGE 18

11^ plot for a comedy of situation and overlooks its relationship to character and theme. Draper, like Preeburg and Curry, so emphasizes the role of disguise for structural comic purposes. John James Munro, to whom Draper refers, had gone so far as to label the early i)eriod of Shakespearean comedy as the "M. I. Group" --the mistaken identity group — overlooking the assimilation of this convention into later plays. Draper does not agree to so pointed a disregard for the dramatist's later use of disguise — "the device still interests Shakespeare," he concedes--but he does agree with Munro that Shakespeare's matxire works which examine a character's misunderstanding, not his mJaapprehension, have outgrown the use of disguise. Draper tests the value of disguise in terms of its vraisemblance and thus concludes that in the mature comedies, which may contain less disguise than the early plans (such as The Comedy of Errors , Love's Labour's Lost , The Two Gentlemen of Verona , and A Midsummer Night's Dream ), Shakespeare "regularly strives to give it [mistaken identity] more realism.""^ As Shakespeaxe becomes more interested in character, mistaken identity "was superseded in Shakespeare's art by subtler forms of dramatic irony, in which not the mere identity, but the acts and particularly the motives, feelings, or point of view, of a given character were misunderstood by one or more of his companions."^ 1 Draper, p. 292. ^ Ibid . ^ Ibid ., p. 296.

PAGE 19

15 It is to be granted, of course, that errors in understanding are central in Shakespeare's mature interest. However, Draper fails to perceive that misconception is dramatically stated at least partly through a subtle and ironic relationship with misapprehension (errors instigated by disguise). With his primary interest in vraisenib lance . Draper judges that the errors of mi sxmder standing "need no obvious properties such as night and masks and dressing in disguise to make them possible." This is so. Disguise is not needed to make misunderstanding probable. Gloucester misunderstood Edgar when Edgar was not in disguise, but the disguising of Edgar provided dramatic opportunities which far transcended the mere physical possibility that a father could see his son and not luiow him, as witness the fact that for a long time it was a blind Gloucester who was in company with his disguised son. This discussion of Draper's bias leads to a major contention of my own study: disguise in Shalcespeare's mature plays sometimes restates, as an emblem does, what the play otherwise says about human misconceptions. Disguise, when it is thus employed, involves ways of looking at things that are typically Elizabethan. It is my intention to refer disguise not only to the emblem but to a general background of those significant outward forms which would have had meaning for the Elizabethan, steeped as he was in analogical patterns of thought. Shakespeare goes beyond the use of disguise for its value in setting up a comedy of situation, for the fascination inherent in deception, ^Ibid.

PAGE 20

16 or for irony in language, to focus some fundamental issue of the play. He also makes it yield to demands of characterization. Through disguise dramatic revelation is achieved. A second major contention of this study is, accordingly, that disguiBe — a device vrhich conceals a character from others in the play — is frequently a medium for revealing character to the audience. Disguise allowtj a disclosure of new facets or ambiguous qualities of character which the ordinary demands of situation render difficult to reveal. As a means of revealing character , disguise will also be placed in its proper context with other forms of exposition which are used for characterization: the soliloquy, the aside, hallucination, dreams, and so forth. Thereby Shakespeare's disguises can be studied against his development of these techniques of exposition. Disguise belongs to still another context. Disguise is a most obvious statement of that discrepancy between appearance and reality which has long provided the basic conflict necessary to a dramatic situation—ever since Oedipus set out to cleanse his city of its evil, Shakespeare is uncommonly concerned with the various forms expressing the relationship between the apparent and the reeil, and he explores these forms from diverse angles, one of which is through a form uniting the true and the false --disguise. Disguise, then, will be examined as one of numerous false forms which include, for example, hallucinations, non sequiturs, wise fools, dissimulated love.

PAGE 21

CHAPTER I DISGUISE AND ELIZABETHAH COSTUME "Apparel oft proclaims the man." ( Hamlet I. ill. 72) If disguise is to be regarded as a means of exposition for characterization and thematic statement— as the Introduction has proposed — then one might ask whether this extra burden of meaning vrould have been felt by an actual Elizabethan audience as well as by the modern interpreter with his passion for symbols and levels of meaning. V/ould the Elizabethen have been sufficiently attentive and responsive to disguises? In order to state fully the function of disguise in Shakespeare's plays, it is necessary to refer not only to the contexts provided by the plays themselves, but also to the then current attitudes towards clothing and costume in general and towards disguise in drama in particular. These attitudes, which will now be examined, will begin to answer the question of what sort of attention and response disguise would elicit from the Elizabethan theater -goer. Evidence pointing to the Elizabethan's thoughtful consideration of clothing, costvune, and disguise is abundant. The contemporary interest in fashions, the religious and moral concern with superficial appearances and inappropriate dress, and the dramatic tradition of symbolic costumes, colors, and materials all combine to testify that clothing evoked serious deliberation. It is common knowledge, even to one who is only casually acquainted with Elizabethan England, that extravagance in clothing was widespread 17

PAGE 22

18 and, of course, conspicuous. The rxiff, for example, is frequently used to typify the dress of the period. Ertravagant clothing was not only on constant display, but it aroused serious discussion. Moralists of all sorts tirelessly denounced the growing worldliness of London men and women, vrtiose preoccupation with mere adornment, such as the ruff, was regarded as morally wealiening and conducive to more active forms of sinfulness. Riilip Stubhes, in his exhaustive summary of current vices — gluttony, usury, whoredom, and covetousness — included pride ir. apparel. Typical of his attitude was his reproof of such superfluities as "great ruffes and supportasies" which, against nature, were bulwarked by "deiiils liquore"--starchl The deuil, as he in the fulnes of his malice, first inuented these great ruffes, so hath hee now found out also two great stayes to beare up and maintaine that his kingdome of great ruffes . . .2 Stubbea proceeded, then, to define and denounce these "stayes": the starch and the wiring that undergirded the ostentatious ruff. It has been observed that clothing was of particular concern in ShaJcespeare's day because a degree of ostentation incongruous to one's position was against the sumptuary laws, which prescribed what dress was appropriate to one's "degree."^ These laws were evidently not kept strictly enough. nPhiUip Stubbes. Anatomie of the Abuses in England, I583 , ed. Frederick J. Furnivall (London: N Trubner and Co., lti77-79), I, TO. ^Ibid ., p. 52. •3 •'Jack E. Teagarten, "Reaction to the Professional Actor in Elizabethan London" (unpublished Eh ,D. dissertation, Dept. of English, University of Florida, 1957), p.. 33.

PAGE 23

19 How often hath her Majestie with the grave advise of her honorable Councell, sette downe the limits of apparell to every degree, and how soone againe hath the pride of our harts overflowed the chanel?l Jack Teagarten, in defining the general Elizabethan feeling against inappropriate dress, also cites Stubhes in his Anatomy of Abuses ; . . . there is such a confuse mingle mangle of apparell in Ailgna, and such preposterous excesse thereof, as every one is permitted to flaunt it out on what apparell he lust himself e, or can get by anie kind of meanes. Clothing, according to the lay moralists, had to be trongruent not only to a person's social position but also to his sex. Clothes that falsified one's nature were condemned at least as heartily as those which falsified one's status socially. The disguise of the female as a male, including any act of simulating male attire, was regarded as a falsification of nature. It vms condemned on several accounts: in the first place, for its artificiality or dishonesty. Hie Muliert Or, the Man -Woman lashed out at the "modern" woman who "will give her honestie to haue her upper parts put into a French doublet."-' Unconfined to places of iniquitous entertainment, this sort of dissembling was alarming also for its ubiquity. The moralist directed his readers to 'look if this very last edition of disguise . . . this bayt which the Diviel hath layd to catch the soules of wanton women. Stephen Gosson, Schoole of Abuse , 1579^ P» 39; as cited in Teagarten, p. 33. Stuibbes, p, 3k, as cited in Teagarten, p. 33. ^ Hic Mulier; Or, the Man -Woman, l620, Sig B2, as cited in Lo\iis B. Wright, Middle Class Ctilture in Elizabethan England (Chapel Hill, N.C.; The University of North Carolina Press, 1935), p. h$k»

PAGE 24

20 be not as frequent In the demy -Palaces of Burgars and Citizens, as it is either as Maske, Try-umph, Tilt-yard, or Play-house."-^ /mother criticism of women who disguised as men is that they corrupted the purity of their sex— they can no longer "be regarded as females. This is another aspect of the general denunciation of clothing that falsifies. Stubhes vituperated in the name of Biblical sanction: It is written in the 22 of Deuteronomie , that what man so ever weareth womans apparel is accursed, and what woman weareth man 6 apparel is accursed also. Now, whether they be within tJie bands and lymits of that curse, let them see to it themselves. Our Apparel was given iis as a signe distinctive to discern betwixt sex and sex, and therefore one to weare the Apparel of another sex is to participate with the kinde, V/herefore these V/omen may not improperly be called Hermaphroditi , that is, Monsters of bothe kindes, half women, half men. The attitude expressed by Stubbes is typical of a medieval (and to a lesser extent, Elizabethan) interpretation of the relationship between form and the contents it embodies. The medieval belief in form as directly revelatory of content (essence) persisted. The same attitude that proclaimed the heart-shaped digitalis leaf to be remedial in heart disease, Judged the "real" sex of an individual in terms of his clothing. Similarly, the outward deformation of Shakespeare's Richard III spoke to Elizabethans of intrinsic mental and moral disproportion. To cite just one other example of this mode of thinking, the emblem frequently depended for its meaning upon the viewer's allying form and content in this way. One of Wither 's emblems presented spiritual Ibid .. Sig CI, as cited in Wright^ p. 14.95. ^Stubbes, p. 73.

PAGE 25

21 deformity by means of a woman whose face is hideous. This identification of intrinsic qualities with form is, of cotirse, nothing new. Referred to most generally as a means of representation in art, it is a mode of stating that has been relied upon in classical periods and one that has rec\irred down to the present day. Form is taken as a representation of inner qualities — of content, if you will— whether that form is, for example, the statue of a Greek athlete — ^whose beauty of body bespoke a beautiful soul — or an even modern painting in which the relaxed position of a figure suggests repose of spirit. This tendency to impute the characteristics of form into content is not foreign to us today. But what makes it difficult for us genuinely to participate in the attitude of the Elizabethan towards clothes, and towards transvestism particularly, is the tone — foreign to us — of high moral seriousness, which accompanied their observations about the appropriateness of one's costume. Clothes in Elizabethan England cannot be regarded as the relatively arbitrary and merely conventionalized garb that is associated with the meuLe, or with the female. Transvestism as it occ\irred in Elizabethan drama was open to the general argvunents against disguising one's sex, but it incurred the ^special attention and indignation of the moralists. It might be supposed that because the actor dissembled his appearance only within the nSeorge Wither, A Collection of Emblemes, Ancient and Moderne . . (London: Printed by A. M. for John Grisraond, 1635), P» 229.

PAGE 26

22 framework of a fictitious situation — a play--he would have been at least somewhat spared the usual censure. But this was not so. Those writers attending to the special situation of the actor who was guilty of transvestism had two objects for their attack: (l) men who either enacted female parts (and dressed accordingly) or who dis1 guised as women during the action of the play, and (2) the female characters (actually represented by male Eictors) who disguised as males during the action of the play. According to Theodore Komisaxjevsky, the objection of the Puritans vms more to the actors indicated in the latter category, to the eustor impersonating the female character — as in the Travesti plays — than to 2 the male character who disguises as a female. The part of the female character in Elizabethan drama was, of coxirse, always assumed by a male character; and that was reprehensible enough. But for this supposedly female character to put on the disguise of a male within the action of '•Elbert Thompson calls attention to the fact that William Perkin's Cases of Conscience , 1595* objected to the assignment of women's parts to men. Elbert N. S. Thompson, The Controversy Between the Puritans and the Stage ("Yale Studies in English," Vol. XX; New York: Henry H>lt and Co., 19037, p. 106. Also, "The Third Action" of Stephen Gosson's Plays Con futed in Five Actions and A Shorte Treatise by "I.G," deplored the appropriateness of female attire by the male. Teegarten, p. kk, Vftxile it is not my intention to canvass the effect of attitvides against disguise in the drama of the period, one example --outside of Shakespeare— which has been noted by Komlsarjevsky will be mentioned. In Jonson's comedy Bartholomew Fair Puritanicdl objection to transvestism is made by' a character whom the context of the play ridicules. Puritan Zeal -of -the -Land Busy rages at Leatherhead's puppet-show: "Yes, and my main argument against yeu is, that you are an abomination; for the male among you putteth on the apparel of the female and the female of the male," (V.iii) Komisarjevsky, p. 86, ^eodore Komisarjevsky, The Costume of the Theater (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1931)* p. 86, ' ""

PAGE 27

23 the play doubled the wrong. The abomination in this event would seem to be doubled, Koraisarjevsky observes, inasmuch as the characters of the young girls were acted by men in the first place. The Puritanical attitude described here is absurd, but the fact that the point was seriously made indicates the moral importance attached to appropriate clothing. The criticism of transvestism in drama usually either took the approach of procl. ^ming the authority that condemned disguise or else described the immoral effects of the practice. The use of Biblical authority such as Stubbes relied upon in his diatribe against transvestism in general is characteristic of the bias of other writers and reflects a long warfare between drama and the Christian church. Elizabethan disapproval of disguising was an aspect of the jrecurrent animosity towards play -making, notable since the ante-Nicene church. Declalmers against actors in general and the disguising of the sexes in particular— John Northbrook, "I.G.", William Prynne, and others— found their support in the early church fathers. Thompson has noted that Tatian and TertuGJ-ian, representative second century spokesmen in this controversy, denounced the actor as a dissembler, as a man in disguise whether or not he was disguised within the framework of the play. The ancient argument against play -making as lying was implicit, Tertullian asserted in De Spectaculis — a second centxiry Anatomie of Abuses for Romethat "if it is prohibited under all circumstances to wear woman's garments, then surely the 'vileness . . . which the buffon in woman's

PAGE 28

2k clothes exhibits' is tin utter abomination." Both the extent and the intense seriousness of the religious censure of disguise are suggested in the Cambridge arguments concerning plays. Documents published in 1599^ covering a series of debates occur2 ring from 1951-1593^ re-echo London sentiment against players and included a controversy over the apparel of the players, William Gager, the Latin dramatist, clached repeatedly with John Rainoldes, learned theologian, in a verbal battle that, according to Thompson, must have spread through much of the country.^ Like the moralist Stubbes, Rainoldes depended heavily upon Mosaic law, which forbade the wearing of garments of the opposite sex. Upon such authority Rainoldes condemned both public and private plays. This authority, however, was questioned. The dramatist Gager set aside as irrelevant the Mosaic law. He arjgued that in some cases a disguise of sex was lawful: to save one's life, for example, or to benefit others. Only when the disguise was made with ill intent did it become wrong. The Cambridge argument indicates that the ethics of disguise was an object of concern to lawyers as well as theologians and lay moralists. The ethics of disguise drew the attention of classical and legal scholars, Gager 's case received support from John Case, Cambridge Aristotelian TTertullian, De Spectaculis, Section XVII, as cited in Thompson, p. 15. TThompson, p. 9^. ^ Ibid ., p. 96. Ibid., p. 97.

PAGE 29

25 scholar, and Gent ill, an Italian friend of Gager and an esteemed authority on international law. All three maintained that the Bihlicai conditions under which the exchange of costume was condemned were no longer present. The law was not to be read literally, A brief review of the specific issues of the debate will help to convey its spirited tone and its assumed seriousness. Attacking one of Gager 's proposals, the theologian Rainoldes insisted that even for purposes of saving his life, a man should not put on the clothing of a woman. The argument for intention, which was important to Gager, was thereby challenged. If intention were the criterion for judging the morality of an act, a man, provided his heart was right, could pray in church with 2 his French hood oil This refutation of intention, Thompson observes, economically took care of another of Gager 's points: that wearing women's attire temporarily for stage costume could .not be; regarded as the same thing as wearing it on a more permanent basis off-stage. In substance, Rainoldes' response was this: "If the wearing of a garment for a single time did not count, then Nero, who according to historians 3 never used the same garment twice, wore no clothing at all," Thus the battle raged, in great earnestness, with varied weapons provided by Biblical tradition and logic. Biblical admonition received support by Ramist logic in the case "•Ibid, ^ Ibid ,, p, 98, 3lbid,

PAGE 30

26 against disguise and its \mdesirable effects. Sidney's Arcadia, as Hardin Craig has pointed out, shows the influence of Ramist logic, in which everything has its proper place. Musidorus, upon discovering Pyrocles dressed as an .Amazon, reprimands him. By assuming this disguise Pyrocles supposedly has done violence to nature; as a result he may suffer, Musidorus warns, Pyrocles retaliates with euaother argument "based upon logic. \iniereas some critics of disguise approached the evil through the dictates of the authority which forbade it, others concentrated upon a description of the effects of disguise on the nature of the individual. The conviction that transvestism perverted women into hermaphrodites has already been discussed inasmuch as it is an example of the Puritanical attack against transvestism in general. The dissembling of the male as a female occasioned a corresponding peipversion, according to V/illiara Prynne in Histrio-Mastix . Such masquerading was condemned as a provocation to sodomy, Prj-nne charged men actors with being "most effeminate, both in apparell, body, words, and workes." He vises Stubbes for support: Than these goodly pageants being done, every mate sorts to his mate, every one bringes another homeward of their way verye freendly, and in their secret conclaves (covertly) they play the Sodomist or worse ,2 Disguise, as we have seen, was subjected to censure from various points. Its critics contended that a person's assuming the garb of the Tlardin Craig, The Enchanted Glass (New York: Oxford University Press, 1937), p. 15*^. p William Prynne, Histrio-Mastix , .I633, p, I87, and Stubbes, L, verso -!<• recto , as cited in Teagarten, p, 46,

PAGE 31

27 opposite sex acted against Mosaic law and contaminated the purity of his particular sex by imposing upon it its opposite. 'What effects did this criticism have upon Shakespeare in his use of disguise? Shakespeare seemed to have been aware of the current censorious attitudes against disguise. His habit of having his disguisers defend their action presupposes that his audience was conditioned by the philosophical and religious climate that opposed disguise as an impropriety, and that he knew it. His position appears to have been that irrespective of what the extreme Puritans said, taking a disguise may be part of a morally neutral or even praiseworthy action. Several of Shakespeare's disguised heroines offer some sort of apologia for their dissembling garb. Rosalind, in As You Like It , denies that her disguise implies a change in her real nature as she remonstrates: Dost thou think, though I am caparison 'd like a man, I have a doublet and hose in my disposition? (lII.ii.20l|-206) Julia in The Two Gentlemen of Verona fears that the world might scandalize her for undertaking so "unstaid" a journey in the costume of a man, ( II. vii. 59-60) The rightness of her disguise is thus questioned, and it goes undefended until a justification is offered, late in the play, by Julia herself . She moralizes concerning her role: It is the lesser blot, modesty finds, V/omen to change their shapes, than men their minds. (V.iv.108-109) The action of Proteus — the lover of Julia who "changed his mind"— is clearly exposed as wrong in this scene. Julia emerges perspectively as at least less reprehensible. Julia's diverting the issue from a lesser

PAGE 32

28 to a greater evil was cedculated to have a disarming effect upon anyone in Shakespeare's audience who was not more than mildly sympathetic with the criticism against disguising. To continue our listing of Shakespeare's heroines who offer some sort of explanation for their disguise: Imogen of Cymbeline counterbalances censure of her immodesty with the remark: Though peril to my modesty, not death on't, I would adventvire, , (in.iv.155-156) If moral controversy over transvestism and the Elizabethan custom of giving serious attention to the appropriateness of all clothing drew sharp attention to disguise when it appeared on stage, to a degree no less remarkable the history of the stage itself provided a vivid vocabulary of meaning to the device. For years in drama there had existed a tradition of meaning in clothes and in the physical appearance of the actor. Costume and various personal accoutrements in Greek and Roman drama and in the English mysteries, moralities and interludes had been a means whereby characters were more fully represented. The Greek actor, who enacted a god or a hero, wae made to appear superhuman by means of the cothurnus, padding, and mask. These aspects of his cost\ane distinguished him from the chorus and audience and reveeded his character through the concealments. The actor's physical form heightened and magnified by cothurnus, and padding, mutely testified to his relative importance, Komisarjevsky, in analyzing the Import of Greek "Treeburg has found apologies similar to these in earlier drama, outside of Shakespeare. P. I73.

PAGE 33

I 29 costvune, defines the use of the mask. Masks were significative of character tj-pes, especially in comedy. The complexion of the devices was important: women's masks were white and the men's brownish. The features had special meaning: impudence, an attribute of the parasite, was recognizable through the hooked nose, while the snub nose designated the yokel and old housekeeper. The colors of the costumes in Greek drama were carefiilly selected with attention to a tradition of color symbolism. Queens appeared in flowing pxirple dresses with a train, while other women wore red, or in p Euripides' time, white. Kings wore green. In the New Attic Comedy (Menander) men wore the chiton , the different lengths of which signified their standing socially.-^ Boys wore purple; men dressed in brown and old men in wh:!te. Black or grey pointed out parasites and toadies; slaves wore white, and eunuchs striped material. Women were differentiated by the white of the young woman, the green or sky-blue of the old woman, or the yellow or multi-colored dress k of the courtesan. Roman drama continued to transmit the tradition of significant costuming. Specific aspects of the Roman costume are catalogued in Bernard Sobel's work. For Roman tragedy the long sweeping robes. Komisaxjevsky, p. 39. ^ Ibid ., p. 3^. ^ Ibid ., p. 36. ^Ibid., p. 37.

PAGE 34

30 syrmata j corresponded to the Greek chiton ; for comedy various short garments recalled costumes of both the Rilyakes and the regular literary comedy of the Greeks. Wigs ( galeri ) were worn, and also buskins, corresponding to the Greek cothurnus. The Roman comic types each had a 2 characteristic costume: slaves were always recognizable because of their traditionally short gowns. Similarly, the soldier wore the chlamys, and the toady a tight himation. All comic actors vrore the low shoe, the soccus. Aspects of costvime such as these are meeuiingful through established convention. In his listing of significant Roman costumes Komisk eurjevsky notes that characters in distress appeared in careless attire. Thus, it appears that costume was chosen for its intrinsic appropriateness to character or immediate situation as well as for its more prevalent uses for arbitrary, though fixed, denotation, Roman comedy continued to attach importance to the color of the actors' dress. For example, old men wore white; procurers wore a gaycolored himation. Red portrayed wealth and dark hues poverty,^ The basic dramatic concept of costume — that it should help represent the character— appeared again in medieval drama. Again, not only jBernard Sobel (ed,). The Theatre Handbook (New York: The Crown Publishers, 1950i p, l86 TCoraisarJevsky, p, ll-6, ^ Ibid . ^Ibid. Ibid,

PAGE 35

31 signs that seem arbitrarily conventionalized but also symbols that are intrinsically appropriate are used. Physical props were relied upon for symbolizing character occasionally in the mystery plays. In the Coventry pageant angels, who of course enjoy a position superior to man in medieval hierarchy, wore a species of cothurnus or short stilts to appear more impressive, to represent physically or spatially their metaphysical status. Since dramatic points of view and perspectives in art will frequently be compared in my study, it might be noted here that this essentially medieval hierarchial perspective persists into Renaissance painting. In Botticelli and Parmigianino, for example, there is employed "a method of scaling figures according to their psychological, social, or 2 ritual importance, much used in romanesque sculpture." Masks and other physical peraphernalia which were revealing disguises v/ere employed with increasing delicacy and intrinsic or psychological relevance. These devils were made up as snakes, sub species Virginia , i.e. with the faces of virgins. The form chosen for representing the devil acknowledges his nature: a deceiver frequently poses as virtue . Similarly, in the moralities Whoredom presents herself as a smart young lady with a mask.^ Komisarjevsky points out too that various animal masks were used, thus opening rich resources of animal traits which could ^Ibid. , p. 62. Wylie Sypher, Four Stages of Renaissance Style (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., Tnc, 1955)^ P» 2b. %omi8arJevsky, p. 62. '^Ibid., p. 67.

PAGE 36

32 economically help to chaxacterize the human actors. From Komisarjevskj'^'s listings it is apparent that color, in the mysteries and the moralities, was serviceable for characterization. White, a perennial referent for purity, as suitable for the Saved Souls of the Last Judgment (Coventry pageant), and for the Mother of God, who changed her costume from blue to white, as death grew imminent. PietsL of the moralities wore white. The use of color, significant costume and appearance in general reflect the medieval dramatist's concern with forcefully exposing what the character stood for — not the character as a particular individual in a unique sit\iation, but the character as allegorically representative of a generalized human situation, one in which metaphysical and moral realities were confronted. Because of the importance of these issues, not the specific but the general meaning of the character is essential and must be transmitted, even to the wearing of inscribed headgear, by the allegorical characters, Komisarjevsky observes that not infrequently the characters or supers who accompanied them carried boetrds or sticks or flags for purposes of malcing the meaning of these characters even more 2 plain to the audience. Allegorical costumes were still seen on the Elizabethan stage, but infrequently^ and outside of the extensive framework of allegorical 1 Ibid . ^ Ibid . ^Ibid., p. 68.

PAGE 37

33 significance found in the moralities. Henry IV, Fart II opens with a speech by Rumour, who is represented as being "full of tongues" literally. Komisarjevsky notes that in Hans Sachs's Stultitia Stupidity wears 1 a fool's cap. The examples axe not numerous. Colors were still of significance, though the symbols frequently changed and became more complex and less conventional. The growing complexity of these symbols and the interest they aroused is, according to M. Channing Linthicum, indicated in the widespread discussion on the subject in the work of the Italians Sicile, Morato, Dolce, and Rinaldi. Although they produced no books of their own, the English "must have been 2 familiar" with the Italian authors. Supposedly in keeping with a recognizable convention of the day, Jonson presented Veneration in ash. Gladness in green, Truth in blue, Affection in crimson. Safety in carnation. However, Middleton was also following a scheme of color symbolism when he attired Truth in white. Error in ash. Envy in red. Zeal In carnation, and so forth. ^ Shake speeire heeded the meaning of colors. Blue, a mark of servitiide in the sixteenth century, is noted in The Taming of the Shrew and Henry VI, Part I. Linthicum notes many uses of color in Shakespeare: green symbolized youth and joy; it was suitably "the colour of lovers"^ ^ Ibid . o 'tA, Channing Linthicum, Costume in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries (Oxford: Claiendon Press, 1936), p, 22. 3 lbid .,pp. 16-17. ^^ Ibid ., p. 27. ^Ibid., p. 31. .

PAGE 38

^ 3h On the other hand the somber green of the weeping willow shared with the tree itself the sjonbolism of tragedy and grief ."^ ( Othello ) The wearing of yellow symbolized hope of marriage and was joyf\illy appropriated by Malvolio, The long tradition of expository costume was continued through the symbolic use of types of cloth in the drama of Shakespeare's day. Linthicum catalogues the various uses: Linsey-vraolsey, a loosely woven plain cloth of linen yarnand wool, was always spoken of contemptuously. Sometimes it indicates confused taHc, as in All's V/ell That Ends Well . (IV. i. 13) Russet stood for honesty and simplicity "because this homespun, coarse cloth was not woven or dyed with any deceitfulness and the cloth was usually left undressed. It functions metaphorically in Hamlet , Love ' s Labour's Lost , and Patient Grissel . (I.I.I66), (V.ii.Ul3), (Sig. bU) Among the silks, sarcenet, a fine, soft, thin fabric of taffeta weave, served to suggest contemptuous slightness in Triolus and Cress ida and Henry IV, Part I. (V.i.36) and (111,1.256)^ Velvet, used as a figure of perfection, can be foiind in Measure for Measure. (l.ii.35) ^Ibid ., p. 3*^. 2 Ibid ., p. U8. ^ Ibid ., p. 81. '^ Ibid ., p. 87. ^ Ibid ., p. 122. ^ Ibid ., p. 126.

PAGE 39

CHAPTER II THE ELIZABETHAN DOUBLE VISION "Methinlis I see these things with parted eye, V/hen every thing seems double." ( A Midsummer Night's Dream . IV. i. 193 -19*0 This chapter continues to answer the question of what sort of attention and response disguise would elicit in Shaltespeare's day by defining the insistent Elizabethan habit of "seeking a further meaning" — interpreting content through form (appearance) or exploring the nature of something through analogy or paradox. V/e have seen that clothes, and disguises particularly, were interpreted as appearances which made a statement about their wearers. Such an interpretation represents a pervasive Elizabethan iierspective commonly explained as the deeply allegorical temperament of the ijeriod. This perspective is a persistent tendency to Juxtapose the outward form of anything and its content and to take a vivid interest in the relationship perceived between them. A definition of this mental habit — which we might call the Elizabethan double vision — will be vindertaJcen in this chapter without reference to clothes or disguise in drama. V/e will look to other objects in the life and expression of the times in order to establish this double vision which provided a fundamental mode of response to Shakespeare's disguises. This chapter will substantiate the proposition that men's minds searched for a further meaning through the category of appearance (whether it be considered trustworthy or deceitful) and through analogy or paradox. 35

PAGE 40

36 Appearances (outward forms) were thoiaghtfiilly considered from two biases: the medieval tradition of significant form persisted and stressed that appearances were acctirate indices to content, while on the other hand there were concurrent attitudes which declared the deceitfulness of mere appearance: that which was immediately confronted. That appearances were taken as a reliable index to their underlying content was illustrated in public displays. Sriectacle and pageantry presented forms which mutely conveyed moral meanings to the public. For example, record is made of a firework display, visible to many, which included "'the seven Deadly Sins in their lively colours, shajre, and characters,' and on top of a pinnacle 'a fierce lion couchant signifying sudden vengeance.'" Appearance in this instance — that is, the form of the couched lion--was intended to direct one's attention to the concept of vengeance. In addition to directly expressive forms such as the lion, various conventionalized forms could be relied upon as signals which clearly pointed to their significance. The maenetic center of Elizabethan patriotism, Elizabeth and her court, were surrounded by an axjra of significant forms. Pomp and ceremony characterized her comings and goings, sometimes directly expressive, of course, but often stylized to a remarkable degree. In The First Night of Twelfth Night Leslie Hotson' s exhaustive efforts to reconstruct the background of Tv/elfth Night recapture the •^Rosemary Freeman, English Emblem Books (London: C!hatto and WinduB, I9W), p. 2.

PAGE 41

37 formal, ritualistic character of the V/hitehall festivals. The accoimt of Mikulin, a Russian dinner -jjuest, portrays perhaps most specifically the stylization in eating ancl drinking. Following a ceremony involving five Cupbearers, these events took place: And as we sat at dinner, the Queen sent hy the Carver a gift to Grigori--a white loaf on a dish covered with a napkin, and he spoke to Grigori: "Our great Lady," quoth he, "Elizabeth the Queen, of her grace bestows on you this napkin."! Following this was the ceremonial eating of the bread and salt in confirmation of the treaty of peace and friendship. /^oiother indication of the ritualistic character of the court is that . . . the ordinary mode of appointing an important household officer was by the delivery of a white staff, which became the symbol of his office, and \rtiich at the funeral of the sovereign he solemnly broke over his head before the bier.2 Though appearances were frequently, therefore, relied upon as guides to meaning, Elizabethan people were far from naive. They were trained skeptics. Esipecially suspect were appearances of virtue. Biblical admonition, certainly familiar to the Elizabethan church-goers and sermon-readers, was instrumental in conditioning minds to seek meanings other than those which outward appearance immediately suggested. Old Testament and New proclaimed that there are two ways of looking at objects. I Samuel l6:7 states that "man looketh on the outward •'•Leslie Hotson, The First Night of Twelfth Night (London: Rupert Hart -Davis, 195^), p. 193. Shakespeare's England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, I916), I, Sk,

PAGE 42

38 appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart." Admonishing his audience to assxime a more spiritual perspective, Paul proposes that "vre look not at the things which axe seen, but at the things which are not seen" (II Corinthians l»^:l8) even though, as finite beings we at best "see through a glass darkly." (l Corinthians 13:12) "Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light," (II Corinthians lltl^J-) while false teachers and false prophets come in Christ's name. Christ exposes false appearances: "Even so ye also outwardly apiiear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hj^ocrisy and iniquity." (Matthew 23:28) The admonition of the emblem and epigram back up scriptural warnings against deceptions. One of V/ither'c epigrans, for example, vrarns : Bee Warie, wheresoe're, thou bee; For, from deceit, no place is free. In another of Wither 's emblems a fashionably dressed woman, representing spiritual deformity, appears to be attractive since she holds before her hideous face a pleasant appearing mask. The accompanying epigram malces the meaning unmistalcable : Deformitie, within may bee, _ Where outward Beauties we doe see, Kot only were apparent virtue and superficial beauty to be scrutinized for underlying corruption, but that which was obviously secular, or wicked was to be re-examined for possible spiritual meanings. 1 Wither, r. 183. ^Ibid., p. 229.

PAGE 43

f 39 A scratch on the surface of falseness could reveal a truth, and much classical pagan literature revealed its "sacred origins" and contained helpfiJ. admonitions. Or, as the modern critic sees, it was recast into an allegorical mold and shaped into an object fit for the edification of Renaissance Christians. No source, no matter how pagan it might superficially appear to he, was to be despised and spurned as lanprof itable . George Chapman, preferring moral to worldly wisdom, read the Iliad as an allegory of "the body's fervour and fashion of an outward fortitude," and the Odyssey as that of "^he mind's inward, constant, and unconquered empire." Francis Meres spoke for his age in Falladis Tamia ; "As bees out of the bitterest flowers, and sharpest thornes, doe gather the sweetest hony: so out of obscene and wicked fables some profit may be extracted," And, as Shakespeare's Henry V observes. Thus may we gather honey from the weed. And make a moral of the devil himself. There is some so\il of goodness in things evil VJould men observingly distil It out, (lV,i.U-5, 11-12) In order to see something as it really is the Elizabethan mind was constrained to regard it indirectly, exploring it throvjgh a relationship, either through double aspects of itself (analogy) or through its opposite (paradox). kjeorge Chapman, The Odysseys of Homer I, ed. Richard Hooper (London: Reeves and Turner, lb97)/p. xlvii-xlviii, T^ancis Meres, Falladis Tamia (1598), ed. Don Cameron Allen (New York: Scholars' Facsimiles and Reprints, 193B), p. 268. Meres is quoting Plutarch. Another of his adages— apparently one of his own~ maltes an amusing contrast with the one quoted here: "Bees abstaine from withered flowers: so we should abstaine from corrupt, vicious and obscene bookea " P. 266.

PAGE 44

1^0 The analogical or allegorical habit vas deeply rooted and variously manifest. The widespread interest in emblems, for one thing, attests to the mental habit of a two-sided approach. The emblem books supplemented an abstract moral precept with an emblem--a visual sign of an idea, reinforcing concept with significant pictorial form. This inclination to juxtapose picture and concept is defined by Rosemary Freeman as the eAlematical temper of the Elizabethans. She observes that "the personified figures vrtiich Spenser used so frequently might be found painted on a ceiling, embroidered on a cloalc, or woven -in a tapestry. . . Originating in France, the emblem books were introduced into England in the 1530' 3. Their instantaneous popularity affirms the emblematical character of the Elizabethan mind. Tillyard, prefacing a study of English emblems, summarizes their significance. Now one of the then habits of mind most prevalent yet most remote from ourselves was the emblematical . . . The chief general Interest of the English Emblem Books is that they present in a very simple and striking form one of the ruling mental principles of a whole century. Their very ingenuousness and their popularity prove how deeply the emblematical way of thinking had penetrated the consciousness of England. ^ Similar to the emblem is the rebus , a sort of riddle representing some sentence or object by means of pictures or words, or a combination of both. Shakespeare's coat of arms is exemplary. A breakdown of his name into "Shake" and "speare" is the basis for the pictorial symbol: a bird, at the top of the crest, raising a spear, apparently about to 1 Freeman, p. 2. ^Ibid., p. viii.

PAGE 45

kl huxl it. Even superficially considered, Elizabethan language and literature bear witness to a pervasive love of analogy. This is reflected not only in whole works but in smaller units. Homonyms were a constant delight because of their concise double meanings. And, for another example, the Petrarchan conceits, on a more sustained basis, provided two levels of meaning. Allegory, the most extensive example of this sort of literary interest, was obviously a popular mode of expression. The Fairie Queen is no doubt the most influential example of Elizabethan allegory. In his search for moral truth the Red Cross Knight endured experiences which find their profoiind appeal because they are analogous to vicissitiides that befall us mortals. Of course, within the allegory the poet touches upon paradox too. The Red Cross Knight frequently acquires new Icnowledge through acquaintance with falsehood in its various forms. The quest for truth in this vrork is indirect and offers a persistent challenge in the discerning of true and false, rl^t and wrong. Outward forms, suggesting intrinsic beauty and truth, are not to be accepted uncritically, Duessa, despite her appearance, ought not to be confused with Una. We shall presently be further concerned with paradox derived from false appearances. Examples of religious and pious allegory are legion. Even a brief survey of the Short Title Catalogue will produce a host of titles testifying to their popularity. The title of Anthony Nixon's allegory

PAGE 46

if2 is representative of their subject matter and approach. The Christian Navy . Wherein is playnely described the perf it course to sayle to the Hauen of eternall happiness , l602. This long poem describes the best course for avoiding the rocks and whirlpools of the sea of life. Especially popular among the middle classes was Richard Bernard's The Isle of Man. Or The Legall Proceeding in Man-shire against Sinne . Phineas Fletcher's Purple Island, Or the Isle of Man , 1^33^ reaches perhaps the limits of unreadable complexity which characterizes these allegories. Another type of allegorical literature that satisfied the dual need of edification and amusement was the beast fable, which, continued in popularity through the time of Elizabeth. Reynard the Fox , for example, was reprinted several times. Again, moral and psychological truths were approached throxogh indirection. By identifying a type of human being with an aajmal, the easily recognized traits of the particular animal rqveal more vividly the quality of the more complex huunan. The usefulness of animal symbolism is recognized by Elizabethan dramatists— Jonson and Chapman, for example — and is used continuously for econoraicaJL characterization . Another indirect way of regarding something — in addition to exploring it analogically— was by examining it in the context of its opposite, that is, through a paradox. The recvirrent Elizabethan distrust of appearances has already been discussed. One evidence of the vinreliability of appearance is that Wright, p. 397.

PAGE 47

h3 what seems wicked, pagan, or sensual may be a mere faqade for the good, the religious, the spiritual. VJhat lay beneath the apparent was its opposite, according to this approach. The eroticism of Ovid, objectionable on its literal level, was rendered not only innocuous but spiritually elevating througti Golding's interpretations. The Pyramus and Thisbe tale, for instance, shows how heady love turns to grief, and it vividly portrays how secret sin is brought to light. Golding's edition of Ovid is prefaced by a laborious defense of the pagan eroticism in terms of moral allegory. If poets, then with leesings and with fables shadowed so The certain truth, what letteth us to pluck those visors from Their doings and to bring again the darkened truth to light. That all men may behold therefore earnestly admonished to be To seek a further meaning than the letter gives to see,^ A The Elizabethan practice of "seeking a further meaning" from classical literature depended upon the sanction and inertia provided by medieval habit. Pagan writings could be conveniently accommodated to the demands of the Christian attitude when they were regarded as corruptions of the true scriptures. At least their sources were good and, talcen allegorically, they were instructive. The role of Virgil in Dante's Inferno reflects the medievai attempt to reconcile classical and Christian traditions. Though not a Christian, Virgil appears to be /^ a suitable guide, a sort of pagan prophet for Christianity, Ovid was similarly misunderstood in the late medieval period. With characteristic irony, Chaucer, it will be recalled, has his Prioress in the Canterb\xry ••oirld's Metamorphoses , trans, Arthur Golding, as cited in The Renaissance in England , ed. Hyder E, Rollins and Herschel Baker (Boston: D, C. Heath and Co,, 195^), p. 5^1.

PAGE 48

kk Tales wear the badge, "Love conquers all"; the legend was taken from Ovid, but lacquered with Christian denotations. In the poetry of Robert Southwell, a Jesuit, the sensual and the spirituEil are two sides of the same coin. This tendency of working through opposites or working through the physical to the spiritual also gathers its moraentxm through the medieval habit of thought. Supported by Platonism and the tradition of the Petraxchan conceit it finally reaches fruition in Donne and the raetaphysicals , with whom it is usually associated. Southwell, contemporary with Shakespeare's productive period, attests to the general search for truth through its varied and often paradoxical facets. That the sensual is expressive of the spiritual is axiomatic to Southwell, Explicit reference to the hidden quality of virtue and beauty is to be fovind in many of his poems. In "New Prince New Pomp" from Saint Peter's Complaint , 1595, we find that "An orient perle is often founde / In depth of dirty mire." And"Love»s Servile Lot" presents love as a false mistress, who "shroudeth Vice in Vertue's 2 veyle." The most extensive and successful of these Elizabethan allegorical techniques is, of course, found in Spenser's The Faerie Queene; working through the sensual and the unlovely, the poem aims at spiritual beauty and the glorification of the Christian virtues. Moral truth, the Elizabethan believed, could be discerned not only directly by precept or historical precedent, but also through a discovery of its oppositeerror— or spiritual truth throiigh the sensual. At the far end of the Tlobert Southwell, The Complete Poems of Robert Southwell, ed. Alexander B, Grosart (London: Rob son and Sons, 1^72;, p. 116. ^Ibld,, p. 78,

PAGE 49

^'? Renaissance, Milton recognized in his Areopagitica that good is knovm through evil and that to eradicate evil would be to destroy the complex which embodied good as well. The attempt to reconcile opposites and see them as double manifestations of an \mderlying unity permeates every aspect of Renaissance thinking. Elizabethans adhered to an orderly conception of the universe which ultimately provided resolution for opposites. Every creature and condition had its antithesis, but every antithesis found resolution in a concordant universe. Hot and cold, moist and dry— all elements fused or mixed to create objects having new, valuable properties. Elizabethans "recognized that this exactly balanced conflict of opposites was essential to the settled order of the world." The discussion of viniversal proportion in The Courtiers Academy by Annibale Roraei, translated by J. Kepers in I598, supports this sort of generalization. Here the beauty and design of the human body is extolled. Man's beauty is in hjri proportion — in this respect he is microcosmic — as he combines many opposites into a product of great attraction. The complex substance, which reconciled a great number of opposites, gave much satisfaction to the Elizabethan. The aesthetic appeal of a diamond is less than man's; its beauty lies in its white color, only a single quality.'^ James Winny (ed.). The Frame of Order: An Outline of Elizaibethan Belief Taken From Treatises of the Late Sixteenth Centvury ^New York; The Macmillan Co., 1957), p. I9. ^Ibid., p. 211,

PAGE 50

kS. This Renaissance habit of a double vision through opposites is reflected in the Ramist logic of the day. This system is a dialectic through which moral truth appears to hang suspended "between the affirmative and the negative; "both sides are debated and every caestion is approached thro\igh its two sides. Ramus states that dialectic "proclaims to us the truth of all argument . . . whether the truth be necessary, as in science, or as in opinion, contingent, that is to say, 1 capable both of being and not being." Because something is contingent, relative, does not mean it cannot be laiown. Its truth lies within categories of both being and non -being. Hardin Craig proposes that this recognition of the double aspect of a moral issue "is an intuitive 2 response to the spirit of the age," And this interest in dialectic was a pervasive one in Elizabethan England, "Proficiency in dialectic with its concomitant rhetoric was the most serious educational and cultural ideal of the age."^ Shalcespeare himself reflects in his drama and poetry the Elizabethan concern with the paradoxical and hidden character of truth, "The Phoenix and the Turtle" concludes that Truth may seem, but cannot be; Beauty briag, but 'tis not she; Truth and Beauty buried be. Petrus Ramus, Dialect Ique , 1955* Po 2. as cited in Wilbur S, Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500-1700 (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1956;, ]?, l^k, 2 Craig, p, 157. 3lbid., p, 152.

PAGE 51

hi And what aie they "buried in? In the false, in the superficially or partially true, or in a paradoxically existing mixttire of the false and the true — as Cressida says, "To say the truth, true and not true." •Y (l.ii.l06) Enigmatic or paradoxical statements such as the following A occur throughout Shalcespeare's drama: "Truth doth . . . falsely blind the eyesight" ( Love's Labour's Lost I. i. 75-76); "I om not what I tun" (lago, Othello I.i.65 and Viola, Twelfth Night III. i. 153); "nothing that is so is so" (Feste, Twelfth Night IV.i.9); "a natural perspective that is and is not." (Dulce, Twelfth Night . V.i.22U). The literary and educated mind of Elizabethan England appears to have been sensitively aware of various meanings latent in a siiigle significant form. But what of Shakespeare's audience? The spirit of the •• age was conditioned by the Biblical and logical tradition of thought and the widespread occurrence of 'analogical and paradoxical multiple expressions. Basing my impression of an Elizabethan avidience on recent stvidies such as Alfred Harbage's and Leslie Hotson's, I assume that in backgrovind and the degree of attentiveness the audience would have been perceptive to the dramatic, expository and symbolic value of Shakespeare's disguises. A vridespread ability to quote from the plays would indicate spectator attentiveness. Furthermore, according to Harbage, J "The ability to quote extended beyond the literate and cultivated si)ectators."-^ AlfJed Harbage, Shakespeare's A\idience (New York: Columbia University Press, 19'<-l); p. 120.

PAGE 52

1^8 Harbage suggests convincingly that the educational "background, emotional responsiveness, and general attentiveness of Shakespeare's heterogeneous audience were on a higher level than has traditionally been supposed. Unfortunately, railers against theater -goers, upon whose records subsequent evaluations have been dependent, are, on the whole, the moralists, who fovuid it convenient to paint a ciear-cut black picture. If future ages judged modern motion pictures by the censuring commentary of present day evangelists, the complexity of motives and experiences of all movie-goers would be similarly simplified and obscured. Supplementing the biased tone of the moralizers is the "sour grape" attitude of linsuccessful or disillusioned dramatists, Harbage discovers that "the most successful writers were less critical when they had scored a hit,"-'' The ordinary commoner was trained to detect an abstract meaning from on outward form; he was accustomed to this way of looking perspectively through things. An emphasis upon graphic similarities among things permeated Elizabethan thinking. The commonness of this analogizing perspective is summarized by vanny: "The unwearied delight in analogy and correspondence which sixteenth-century literature esdiibits is notirished by beliefs held in common by theologian, scientist, and poet, 2 and deeply Impressed upon the outlook of all three." •'•Ibid., p. 130-131. % f/inny, p. 15*

PAGE 53

k9 Moral truth and the relevance of objects and incidents were continuously sought after through something else: its analogical counterpart or its opposite. This sort of perceptiveness resulted not only from the cultural conditioning that would have been restricted to certain classes or occupations — the highly literate, or the cleric, for example— but it was generated by a pervasive allegorical habit of thinking. The Elizabethan did not have to be an aristocrat or a student highly trained in scholastic thought to respond to the import of the bonfire, mentioned previotisly, in which a fierce lion signified sudden vengeance . Even more universally, this sort of perceptiveness testifies to the ubiquitous ability or tendency of man to see more clearly that which is hidden. What one must attend to most carefully, one sees best. Apart from the conditioning of time and place and even education, this psychological phenomenon presents itself in human nature. Emily Dickinson, who so frequently captures a common but infrequently expressed psychological reality, succinctly conveys this expository value of obscuring forms. The thought beneath so slight a film Is more distinctly seen,— As laces just reveal the surge. Or mists the Apennine, Or, I wo\ild like to propose, as disguise reveals the character so obscured.

PAGE 54

CHAPTER III CHARACTER DEPTH THROUGH DISGUISE "I am not what I am." (Viola, Twelfth Night III. i. 153) At its dramatic best, disguise in Shakespeare's work not only conceals but, paradoxically, reveals through concealment. Or, expressed in the idiom of Chapters I and II, it is a form of deception which nevertheless becomes not a piece of wickedness but an avenue to truth. Shakespeare's use of disguise for characterization will be analyzed mainly throvigh a close study of three disguised characters. Henry V and the Rosalind of As You Like It serve to illustrate how disguise liberates a character, granting him freedom to express and thereby reveal himself more fully. Secondly, Rosalind and Coriolanus explain the function of disguise as a kind of visible metaphor, a means of epitomizing some quality in the disguised character. An auxiliary and final purpose of this chapter is to examine disguise as it compares in effectiveness and dramatic thrift with other techniques for the exposition of character and as it complements their techniques. Apart from those qualities of Henry V which disguise reveals, the king suffers luader so heavy a thematic load that it is difficult to imagine responding to him with sympathy or even with dramatic belief. The play presents the completed realization of Hal as a king, and it also brings to a resolution the ideas of power and statesmanship broached in Richard II . In Henry V a serious and predominating theme is the 50

PAGE 55

51 establishment of English order after a troubled period of internal conflict. Henry is deeply concerned with the legality and ecclesiastical approbation which underlie his action in claiming the throne of France. He desires to act "with right and conscience/'— to he right even more than to fulfill his own interests, so he inquires into the validity of his claim upon France before he will fight. With a legal ifovindation beneath him and a religious demeanor, Henry faces battle "by God's Grace." With a settled and quiet dignity, which commands respect and loyalty, he vinites the factions springing from various national peculiarities. In order to support the exalted representation of kingship in Henry V , it is necessary for Shakespeare to establish and maintain Henry's royal dignity and moral purpose, Henry heeds a noble obligation and resolutely pvirsues it. However, it is difficult for the main character of a play to arouse the sympathetic interest of an audience when he is a man without any inner conflict or human weakness. A new facet to Henry's personality is illuminated when he appears disguised in the midst of his discouraged soldiers in the camp. Ifenry dissembles in the cloak of Sir Thomas Erpingham, one of his officers. Temporarily Shakespeare thereby frees Henry from his weighty role as the \inflinching and righteous monarch, allowing him to engage in a new identity — in a position no more exalted than good old Erpingham's. Only superficially, however, is Henry someone else; actually he is more fully himself. That is, he reveals aspects of his essential nature that have been thus far concealed.

PAGE 56

52 Henry's status as king, quite idealized in this play, does not give an opportunity for the exposure of the common fears that he shares with the lowliest of his men. But in his disguise Henry can tell us how he feels, under the guise of interpreting the nattire of the kirg to a soldier, John Bates. "I think the king is "but a man, as I am," he begins. The violet smells to him as it does to me; the element shows to him as it doth to me; elLL his senses have but human conditions. His ceremonies laid by, in his nakedness he appears but a man; and though his affections axe higher mounted than ours, yet when they stoop, they stoop with the like wing. Therefore, when he sees reason of fears as we do, his fears, out of doubt, be of the same relish as ours are; yet, in reason, no man should possess him with any appearance of fear, lest he, by showing it, should dishearten his army. (lV.i.105-117) Shakespeare has chosen an exceptionally effective medium through which he reveals to us the humanity of Henry, ^ich involves, in part, both sensitivity to fear and to the responsibility that restrains him from more direct expressions of personal feeling to his subjects. The conventional devices for such revelations of feelings that are inexpressible because of the demands of the action are the aside and the soliloquy. Set speeches, however, diverge from the moving plot, or they axe generally uneconomical modes of disclosure, serving a single . purpose. Shakespeare, as his technique develops, leaxns to do without soliloquy or else to use it more discriminatingly and with greater relevance to character and situation; Hamlet comes to mind as the obvious example. In Henry V, a con^aratively early play, a soliloquy follows the disguise scene. Disguise dramatically complements the conventional set

PAGE 57

53 piece. The soliloquy makes explicit what has just been dramatized: outward appearances are misleading or incomplete presentations. The sorrows and tribulations of a king are laid bare in this impassioned conqplaint, which again points beyond the Henry who was revealed only thro\igh his official speeches and royal actions, to offer intimations of humanity. Henry inspects the natvire of ceremony. According to established Elizabethan attitudes the regal forms constituting the ceremony of which Henry speaks, are directly significant of the god -like qualities of the king, a being distinctively different from the common citizen. Henry, however, addresses ceremony in this way: And what art thou, thou idol Ceremony? What kind of god art thou, that suffer 'st more Of mortal griefs than do thy worshippers? Art thou aught else but place, degree, and form. (l7.i.257-263) Ironically, those ceremonious forms which were respected by Elizabethans as revealing the nature of kingship are exposed as incomplete guides, whereas Henry's disguise, the assumption of garb that hid his position, acttially proved the means for expressing his innermost being. Through the combined effects of these indirect and direct displays of personal pathos, we are made aware of the problems and fears facing the king— problems and fears vAiich, because of the demands of his situation, he must never tindisguisedly disclose. Henry emerges not simply as a capable and righteous ruler or one whose Initial propositions are simply tested and made to triumph, but he emerges also as a

PAGE 58

5U more dynamic hvunan person and thereby arouses from the audience the sympathetic response due a dramatic hero. Disguise serves another purpose in Henry V . As an English king, personedly qualified for his noble role, Henry can no longer associate closely with his old cronies Pistol, Nym, and Baxdolph. But he is somewhat liberated from unrelieved seriousness when he assumes a disguise, talks freely with his men, and Indulges In a bit of joking, in a spirit reminiscent of the fun-loving Prince Hal of the Henry IV plays. Donning Sir Thomas' cloak, Henry again Jokes with his old friend. Pistol. In his elevated position as king, Henry can no longer be his comrade, however; and the degree of the difference between the two — a difference \riilch combines with other aspects of the play to exalt Henry — is expressed here as Henry, through his disguise, is temporarily in a position to banter with Pistol. The import of Henry's jesting eludes the naive Pistol because of its sophistication. For example, when Pistol asks Henry his name, the king replies, "Harry, le Roy'."/ "Le Royl a Cornish name. Art thou a Cornish crew?" asks Pistol, obviously ignorant of French. {Tf .±.kQ-^0) The disparity between the characters is now almost too great to permit a mutually satisfying, reciprocal species of Joking. Henry's old sense of humor is somewhat recaptured and combines with his revealed fear and compassion to humanize him; and at the same time Henry's transcendent status is re-emphasized through his evident superiority, even while he is in disguise, to his former comrades. The Elizabethan mode of expression through opposites underlies the disguise technique; what the king is is more dearly seen throiigh what he

PAGE 59

55 is not . With his characteristic condensation the dramatist accomplishes several things at the same time, through a smoothly adapted convention which — unlike soliloquy— does not retard the movement of the play. The disguise of Rosalind in As You Like It is similar in function to that of Henry V; it allows for a more complete pict\ire of the character through an artistically controlled conventional device. Disguise grants Rosalind freedom of action and language, which her femininity would otherwise have restricted. Through the artifice of disguise Shakespeare clLso offers dramatic statement of qualities essential to Rosalind's nature. Again it is necessary to examine the play as a whole before considering the special role of disguise. The play is essentially about love, from the most earthy love of Touchstone and Audrey to the etheriallzed, sentimentalized relationship "between Silvius and Hiehe, Rosalind is also a lover, and in this role she is the median for lovej Rosalind dominates the drama not merely hy virtue of her attractive personality, but because she stands between all the extremes of the play — incliiding excesses of many sorts, but excesses in attitudes toward love in particular. When Jacques says he likes his melancholy better than laughing, Rosalind reproves him: "Those that are in extremity of either axe abominable fellows." (lV.i.5-6) And to Silvius she says, "You are a fool, and turn'd into th' extremity of love." ( IV. iii. 22-23) Rosalind interprets the excesses constituting these extremes and helps to resolve them by offering the realistic type of love which she represents.

PAGE 60

56 Even her own lover, Orlando, comes within the commentary of her values. Though loved by Rosalind, he romanticizes love too much for Rosalind's taste. Through her disguise Rosalind assumes the more agf gressive role of a man and can criticize Orlando's sentimentality, ^Aiich she could not do directly. Rosalind and Orlando are in love throughout the play, Rosalind fell in love with Orlando immediately and completely; she had little opportunity to know him well. In the forest of Arden Rosalind is slightly taken aback when she finds that the young lover, whose verses she and Celia-prompted by Touchstone --have found so ridiculous, is none other than her Orlando, Orlando has been characterized as comely, strong, gentle, brave, modest and in all aspects quite ideal as a lover for Rosalind. However his sentimentality V is not in accord with her more reaJ.istic approach to love. Orlando says he will die of love; this, Rosalind says, is nonsense. Orlando obviously must be re-educated in the nature of love and Rosalind, throiigh her disguise, is an eminently qualified critic and instructor , but one always in keeping with the established tone of comedy, which dominates the play. As the median or the synthesizer, "the golden girl" in a drama of many extremes, Rosalind, through her disguise, is allowed to be both an amusing and penetrating critic on ^ the excesses of love. For such an aggressive role as Rosalind has to play, Shakespeare no doubt had some problems. In literature, the troubadour tradition of the passive and aloof female was not so entirely replaced in Shakespeare's

PAGE 61

57 day, that overbearing women would appear attractive. And according to the accredited faculty psychology of the times, certain proprieties were imposed upon the femeuLe nature: under an influential convention Rosalind, as a woman, was expected to be passive and phlegmatic. Disguise does much to liberate the heroine from such restrictions. In actual life, the froward woman was strongly reproached. Each age seems to have its distinctive species of controversy over women and sixteenth and early seventeenth century England was certainly no exception. Burgher writers in particular were voluminous and spirited in their pronouncements concerning woman's place in society. •'• Growing interest in discussions of the relations of the sexes was provoked by the increasing liberty of women. 2 Venting their displeasure, the conservatives reproached women for their masculine boldness and growing sphere of activity. Husbands were ordered to assume more firm regulatory roles and to maintain leadership. One among the many evils of the female natiire was talkativeness. Another was scheming. Intriguing females, whose prototypes are Eve, Jezebel, Herodlas, and other Biblical characters, were included in the diatribes. On both accovints Rosalind and other vivacious and dissembling women from Shakespeare would undoubtedly be subject to a barrage of vituperation, had they been actual Elizabethans. bright, p. 1^65. ^Ibid., p. Iv66.

PAGE 62

58 The number of books recording this sort of censure vas legion. For illustration, Abraham Vele's publication in I560 will serve: The decyte of women, to the Instruction and ensample of all men, yonge and olde, newly corrected . This supplied in addition to the text, a pictorial warning to husbands, in a woodcut on the title-page feaxsomely presenting a woman astride her spouse, who goes on all fours with a bridle in his mouth as she flogs him with a three -lashed whip. The prologue maintains that only froward and deceitful women need take offense at the book. ... Such books were in popular demand and their contents were evidently well known if not always agreed with. Critics of the anti-feminists, as one might suppose from a period that was fond of logical disputation, challenged the ideas of their opposition point by point.
PAGE 63

59 Prynne, vrtio can always be counted on to analyse the wickedness of women ^ makes this analogy: "To conclude, whosoever she be, shee's but a Guilded Pill, coraposde of these two ingredients, defects of nature, and an artificiall seeming of supplie , tempered and made up by pride and vanity, and may wel be reckned among these creatures that God neuer made." Shakespeare was aware of this line of thinking— this censvire of assertiveness and the attitvuie that the very nature of the woman was altered by the assumption of disguise. As was mentioned earlier, Shakespeare's heroines make disarming statements implying that no immediate and pat conclusions concerning their natures can be reached merely on the basis of their use of disguise, Rosalind is vindicated in another way. Her disguise is an allegedly evil form out of which good actually comes. That we are here confronted with a dramatic statement flatly contradictory to the allegation that disguise is evil because it produces evil consequences is clear. We are not dealing with an accidental. Within the comic framework of plays such as The Merchant of Venice and Twelfth Night, to mention just two, good comes of disguise. Good comes of Henry's disguise; certainly it is the consequence of the Duke's disguise in Measure for W. Measure and of Kent and Edgar in King Lear . Althougli Shakespeare's "H/illiam Prynne, Histrio-Mastix The Players Scourge, or. Actors Tragaedie, Divided Into Two Parts (London; Printed by E. A. and W. I. for Michael Sparke, 1633), pp. 60-61.

PAGE 64

plays abovind in pernicious dissemblers and impersonators of many sorts, nowhere after the early Henry VI is a physical disguise assumed with a destructive result. In yet another manner Shakespeare provides a defense for Rosalind' s disguise. It is on ohlique defense, but cogent. This oblique defense of Rosalind and its effect upon her characterization will he best understood if we first establish the mode of argument which vinderlies it as both typically Shakespearean and also as a form of rhetoric well known to Elizabethans. This mode of argument consists of using an opponent's eirgument as a means of refuting his major contention. It is enticing to think of Shalcespeaxe's using the very form of what is criticized — the disguised woman— to vindicate it or at least to render it innocuous and appealing. The rhetorical device of using an objection to turn it back against him who made it would certainly have been known to Shakespeare, and its use is consistent with his practice elsewhere. Characteristic of Shakespeare's drama is an amused, gibing attitude towards contemporary but unreasonable ways of thinking or fixed beliefs. One way of mildly and subtly counteracting them without relying upon direct satire, is to allude to the questionable object or actually to employ it and somehow throxigh its use, parody or otherwise undermine it. This is accomplished through classical modes of argumentation, with which Shakespeare is thoroughly at home. For example, Shalcespeare grants his critic the critic's own ground through Julia's speech In The Two Gentlemen of Verona . "It is the lesser blot , , . women to change their shapes.

PAGE 65

61 than men their minds," (V.iv.lOS-109) The argument against disguise-that it is a blot--is conceded, "but its desirability over inconstancy of intent sets it advantageously in a new light, "because it is observed as relative to what is worse. Rhetorically this type of defense and rebuttal is metastasis . This device involves the turning back of an ob1 jection against him who made it. There is in Antony and Cleopatra an instance of the use of metas tasis for an amusing gibe. Stubbes in his Anatomie of Abuses , vrritten 1583, condemns plays in which bawdiness, lechery, and adultery appear in 2 "infinite varietie." What context Shakespeare put this pejorative phrase in is well Icnown: "Time cannot wither her," says Enobarbus, "nor custome stale/ Her infinite variety." In the prevailing moral code of Elizabethans such as Stubbes and in the eyes of the Romans the "infinite variety" of Cleopatra is vicious. Yet the whole force of Cleopatra's triumphant personality turns the phrase back upon it self --helped, of course, by the admiring tone of Enobarbus' eulogy, A phrase initially pejorative becomes the means of memorable praise. Thus Shakespeare accepts an ant i -feminist's phrase and so treats it that the original intention is precisely reversed. The type of arguiifint behind this allusion can be more clearly seen in the development of Antony's oration in Julius Caesar , Here the •'•Henry Peacham, The Garden of Eloquence (1577)* p. I80, as cited in Sister Miriam Joseph, ShaJcespeare's Use of the Arts of Languaee (New York: Columbia University Press, 19^9) t P« 303. 2gtubbes, p. Ik3,

PAGE 66

62. metastasis is employed in its conventioneil context of verbal argument rather than transformed into a dramatic device. Follovring Brutus' speech defaming the murdered Caesar, Antony begins with the premise of the "noble Brutus"— that Caesar was ambitious. Antony uses this premise, in the guise of agreeing, to eventually undermine it and establish a new conclusion. Brutus' speech has succeeded. Through his established character of a good, noble man and his appeal to his axidience as reasonable men, he has successfully convinced these auditors that Caesar was overly ambitious, Antony in attacking Brutus must work through the premise of his opponent and through the attitxide of Brutus toward his audience that had been fundamental to the establishment of this premise. That is, the audience, appealed to as reasonable men, are convinced of Brutus' honor and Caesar's infamy on this basis. It is the aim of Antony, however, to lead them, by appealing to their emotions, into a sympathetic attitude towards Caesar. Unable to violate the assumptions of the crowd at the moment, Antony must condition the assumption with a not too obvious "if"; The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious. If it were so . . . (Ill.ii.82-8U) Repeatedly Caesar's ambition is presented as the conclusion of the noble Brutus. If Caesar isn't ambitious — and Antony increasingly insinuates that he isn't — then Brutus' nobility is put in question. And if his nobility is put in question, so is the assumption that the cro^'fd has behaved reasonably by receiving Brutus, Thus Antony prepares the way for appealing to them as men of passion.

PAGE 67

63 It is not meet you know how Caesar lov'd you. You ore not wood, you axe not stones, but men; And being men, hearing the will of Caesar, It will inflame you, it will malce you mad. (Ill.ii.llf6-l49) The necessity of disarming and refuting through accepted modes of thoxight, which is the common factor iti the examples of rebuttal cited above, is certainly not beyond the interest and practice of Shakespeare on a scale that is larger than these incidental occurrences. Shaitespearr? frequently exposes a character's inappropriate reliance upon conventional, facile approaches to truth. In Jxilius Caesar use is made of Brutus' reliance upon idealistic precept to expose its inapplicability in a specific situation. Hamlet's reliance upon example or precedent — Horatio and Fortinbras— has no efficacy in the solution of his own individualized dilemma. Oiir excursion into examples of Shakespeare's use of a rhetorical mode of argumentation has taken us through devious by-ways. However, by defining this typically Shakespearean and Elizabethan way of looking at things, this discussion provides a basis for insight into the dramatist's use of disguise. Now back to Rosalind. Rosalind assumes a disguise, implying her deceitful nature. That is, in an Elizabethan frame of reference she is tworfaced, two irreconcilable things at the same time, which nevertheless produce something new— a new creatvire, one not created by God — a hermaphrodite, Prynne would proclaim. Dramatically, too, she is a new creature. In a sense, Prynne is right. His premise is granted; a new statement about Rosalind's nature is proffered through her assumption of a disguise. But the

PAGE 68

&i spectacle of disguise dramatically imposes a new conclusion upon this premise, just as Julia, in the statement already referred to, recast the traditional criticism against disguise and just as Antony used the statement of Brutus and Shakespeare the phrase of Stubbes to force new conclusions upon them. Rosalind is a rounded character composed of opposite qualities of masculinity and femininity that are in their complexity much more realistic and convincing than the conclusion of the moralist who depends upon a false belief in the connection between clothes and their wearer. Compared with the moralists ^^o objected to disguise, Shakespeare is more modern and, of course, artistic in his approach, using disguise to show how many facets of Rosalind's personality— a personality in which the traditionally accepted distinctions between male and female are not mutually exclusive. As in Ramist logic, "to be and not to be" are really one; they are aspects of being in its more comprehensive scope. Or, as in the rhetorical device of prosapodosis . none of the alternatives are rejected: the device of prosapodosis "overthroweth noe parte of the Division, but returneth some reason to each member affirmes and keepes all sides upp." Rosalind's personality is allusive and realistically complex, one that twentieth century anthropologists such as Margaret Mead could acclaim as lifelike, recognizing as they do that many of the qualities commonly attributed to either the male or female as intrinsically peculiar to that sex are actually the products of conditioning cultures. ^Hoskyns, p. l6o, as cited in Sister Miriam Joseph, p. 362.

PAGE 69

65 Clearly, therefore, at all points where Shakespeare was defending Rosalind's disguise against the objections lodged in his audience's minds he was accomplishing positive dramatic disclosures of material vital to his play's total statement. The dramatically important matter is, of course, the positive statement made jpossible by disguise, and to illustrate such positive statement we shall now more extensively explore the contrasts implicit in Rosalind disguised. Disguise reveals Rosalind throvigh offering a contreist between what she is — a woman — and what she appears to be — a man. Disguise not only establishes RosEilind as a personality composed of both masculine and feminine qualities, but it accentuates her femininity through the concealment , This is generally the effect of the disguised heroine to those who witness performances of the plays. It is true especially of a play whose dialogue helps to center attention on the real Identity of the woman in disguise. Not only Rosalind but elLso Viola, for example, in an actual dramatic production of Twelfth Night emerges much more emphatically feminine than if the romantic action of the play had not Involved masquerading. And her femininity is not inerely accentuated by the contrast between her physical woman's body and its man's dress. Because of disguise she is both somewhat masculine and more than ordinarily feminine. She is more womanly in disguise because of the constant and unmistakable reference to what she isn't — a man. This reference is provided less by her disguised appearance than by the double entendres , the postures and gestures, the mannerisms, and the whole set of relationships occasioned and sustained by this situation.

PAGE 70

66 The effect of this constant emphasis on Roseilind's and Viola's feminine -masculine duplicity is relevant to the larger interests of the plays. Both plays abound in a spirit of love and Joy in la difference; and a conspicuous means of establishing la difference is disguise. The nature of the comedy that emerges in these plays and is heightened by disguise is incompaxably more delicate than is common to the Plautine and Italian conventions. Differences are more apparent when resident in a single form. The pun can be a way of establishing a new attitude through the presented differences, just as a rhetorical device can force together argument' and refutation through the same premise. V7ith reference to Macbeth Kenneth Muir regards Shakespeare's mature pun to be an "uncomic pun" in the sense that it functions with serious, far-reaching dramatic effects. 2 For one thing it links together unrelated imagery, acting as a solvent for mixed metaphors. This is by analogy a statement of the effect of Rosalind-indisguise. Inasmuch as she can be interpreted as a vlsvial pun. The contrast offered by a woman in the disgviise of a man is, as we observed in the rhetorical device, prosapodosis, dependent upon a coincident presentation of opposites, not upon an alternation between one part of an antithesis and the other. Shakespeare uses slmiltaneous •"•Shakespeare suggests a thing by saying its opposite, more obviously, through the verbal statement. In King Lear, for example, -the Etool counsels Lear: "But I will tarry; the Fool will stay,/ And let the wise man fly./ The knave turns fool that runs away;/ The Fool no knave, perdy." (II. iv. 83-86) Suggested by Hudson in -the Purness ed., p. ll|-5. '^Kenneth Muir, "The Uncomic Pun," The Cambridge Journal, III (May, 1950), l^72-i^85.

PAGE 71

67 contrast in a number of ways besides disguise and the pun. It is the operating force behind the oxymoron and other verbal paradoxes or alliterative devices that permeate Shakespeare's art. E. E. Stoll in Art and Artifice in ShEikespeare analyzes the dramatic effect achieved through contrast, particularly with regard to the simultaneous existence of opposite qualities in the personality of a single character. Othello, for example, does not vacillate between love and hate; he both loves and hates concurrently. This juxtaposition of opposite qualities is explained more fully in the following quotation, in which Stoll briefly--and intriguingly— allies it with the "situation of disguise." Instead of the conflict and contention, oscillation or fluctuation, resolve and counter -resolve, of the Racinian or Cornelian hero, there is, through all the changes, a contrast, continually reappearing, of the two feelings side by side. He is not now loving again, now jealous, but both together. There are jvixtaposition and opposition instead of contention and alternation; and this very much as in ancient tragedy, the Antigone , the Oedipus , or the Agamemnon , and somewhat as in the situation of disguise, of Titus' and Hamlet's feigned madness, or of Macbeth 's present horror of the deed which he is doing. Through the mask of Othello's hatred the eyes of his love are ever looking: "Come, swear it, damn thyself Lest, being like one of Heaven, the devils themselves Should fear to seize theel"! (lV.ii.35-37) Reference has been made to Rosalind as a visual pvin. Dramatically this is her effect — what she is is expressed in terms of what she appears not to be — and the possibility of her being recognized as such is consonant with the Elizabethan mode of double vision: looking at something Isimer Mgar Stoll, Art and Artifice in Shakespeaxe; A Study in Dramatic Contrast and Illusion (Mew York; Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1933), p. 2k,

PAGE 72

68 two ways. Much of the Elizabethan double vision employed one of. its objects £ox the sake of expressing the other. The emblem existed as pictorial reinforcement for the epigram. Tlie sensual was frequently merely a conveyance for the spiritual, as in Golding's Ovid . For the sake of examining Shakespeare's complexity in the framework of the Elizabethan double vision, the eyes of modern aestheticlans are directive. Maurice Grosser helps to define the Elizabethan double vision when he discusses the use of double images in art. How to look at paintings is the problem attacked by his study The Painter's Eye . Grosser discusses double images in modern art, nothing that as a technique of painting it is not new. Allegory, which was the subject matter of so much of the painting and poetry of the Middle Ages and of the Renaissance, is but the systematic use of double images. Decorative painters, like the sixteenth century Arcimboldo, for example, often painted landscapes, or still-lifes, which seem from a certain distance become grotesque faces. But here the double image was only a decoration or a joke; or, as with the alchemists, was used to conceal knowledge in an impressive and secret alphabet; or, as in allegory, furnished the painter with a useful framework for composing the world he knew into large, rich pictures, at the same time exhibiting his philosophy or his wit.l At any rate, one meaning in the double image existed for the sake of another. Modern art, Grosser proposes, is distinguishable because all of its meanings are equally important. Of which perspective is Shakespeare typical? He is modern in his concern for life-like complexity. Rosalind's masculinity does not merely reveal by contrast her femininity. •Wurice Grosser, The Painter's Eye (New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1956), pp. 168-I69.

PAGE 73

69 It does not exist merely for the sake of the underlyine femininity. The masculine aggressiveness and resourcefulness and her capacity for rather coarse jesting while she is in disguise are authentic parts of her total personality. Her total meaning does not reside in an either-or dialectic between what are traditionally accepted as opposites but in the combination of the two, plus qualities revealed through her very willingness to assume disguise: that is, an adventuresome willingness, defying modesty, to try a new experience. The shock of Rosalind and Viola in disguise is a type of counterpoint that can be expressed also in terms of what Grosser calls NeoClassicism in art. He mentions the Neo-Classicism of Picasso's Mother and Child "where a family portrait is disguised as a late Roman fresco"; of the same painter's costumes for Satie's ballet Parade , "where the ineffectual managers axe clothed in tha monumental style of a New York skyscraper"; of the films of Mae V/est, "where an up-to-date and brazen sensuality is displayed in the rococo trappings of a decade supposed to be more pmdish than our own." In all these examples the shock of double image comes from the Incongruity between the content and its form. The effect of these jioxtaposed incongruities is obviously unlike the effect of medieval and Renaissance allegory. The two elements of the modern double vision say something about each other and, as in the case of Rosalind's incongruity, the total is more than the sura of its parts. ^Ibld., p. 171.

PAGE 74

70 The assumption of a disguise; as we have seen, can be revelatory of character through llherating him from the demands of a restrictive role or through visual punning. The visual pun, commenting as it does upon the nature of Rosalind, functions symbolically. The symbolic use of disguise v^ill he examined more closely with reference to Coriolanus: his disguise --the very act of its appropriation and the way in which it is discovered— is emblematic of Coriolanus' nature. The long dramatic tradition of significant costuming which is behind Shakespeare has already been discussed, in Chapter I, and has prepared the vmy for our understanding of Shakespeare's symbolic disguises. Clothes and costume generally were endowed with significance. But even more to ovir point, disguises of various sorts were used symbolically. The mask, for example, has been alluded to briefly as a means for character iz lag which was much used in early drama; as a symbolizing device which reveeils as it conceals, it is analogous to Shakespeare's symbolic disguises . ;\rthur E. Ilaigh in Attic Theater has fovmd that figures such as Justice, Persuasion, Deceit, and Jealousy were represented by special masks in Greek drama. These masks quickly, conventionally, and vividly signified the forces which the characters represented. Green drama, early English liturgical drama, and Japanese drama are alike in their Arth\ir Elam Haigh, The Attic Theater (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1898), p. 221.

PAGE 75

71 religious orieins and in their symbolic use of disguise. Though they grew independently, these plays originate in religious rites: Greek from the worship of Dionysus, English from the worship of Christ, and Japanese from the contemplation of the Shinto deities and Buddha, The sjTfribolio use of the mask, which reveals as it disguises, is most clearly seen in the Japanese Noh drama, which is alive and unaltered in present times. This poetic drama has heen "transmitted almost \mchanged from 2 one perfected form reached in Kioto in the fifteenth cent\iry." In the rioh plays the artifice of the mask "becomes a vital stylistic element which gives precision and intensification to the character. Masks are used not for quick identification hut for transmitting through a traditionally sanctioned form, a statement which achieves tremendous animation. In a nation which has remained homogeneous and static iintil recent years these artifacts are significant forms invested with life. It is a Noh saying that, "The heart is the form,"'^ A species of dramatic life strikingly similar to that which persists in Japan was once felt in the tradition to which Shakespeare helonged. Symbolistic disguise appears in English drama before Shakespeare, In Skelton's Magnificence disguise is used symbolically. For the most part, the hero mistakes vice for virtue simply hecause wicked characters Tirnest Fenollosa and Ezra Pound, * Koh' or Accomplishment; A Study of the Classical Sate of Japan (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, I9I6), p. 110. 2 lbid ., p. 102, ^Ibid,, p. 52.

PAGE 76

72 chaiige their najnes--Fancy for Largess, Crafty Conveyance for Sure Surveyance, Cloaked Collusion for Sober Sadness. In one instance, however, disguise, Imbued vrith symbolic denotation, augments the change of name: Cloaked Collusion wears some sort of vestment or priestly garment to represent Sober Sadness. An advance in the attempt to represent character through emblematic disguises is noted by Freeburg. In Sir David Lyndesay's Satire of the Three Estates Flattery, Falsehood, and Deceit change their names to Devotion, Sapience, and Discretion; but in addition all three of these 1 vices put on the costvune of friars. Early in the play The Three Ladies of London , a late morality. Dissimulation comes upon the scene, "having on a farmer's long coat and a cap, and his poll and beard painted motley.'"^ It is of significance that Dissimulation appears as a farmer and that he is unwilling to risk the chance of being talcen too literally, as a mere farmer or as a farmer arbitrarily. He explains himself to his audience: My name is dissimulation, and no base name I bear For my outward effects my inward zeal do declare; 3 Dissimulation thus proclaims his zeal as similar to that of the industrious farmer . He is soon followed by Simplicity as a miller and Fraud as a ruffian. 1 Freebiirg, p. 19. Tl. W., The Three Ladies of London , 158^, ed. W. Carew Hazlitt, Old English Plays (London; Reeves and Turner, l&jh), p. 25I. ^Ibid., p. 252.

PAGE 77

I 73 The pattern that these disguises follow is a carry-over of medieval allegorizine— allegorizing for the purpose of revealing an abstraction of some sort, a moral truth or a particiilar vice, just as, in Grosser' s discussion of the double image, one image was regarded as existing for the sake of the other. The abstraction of the medieval drama and the disguise of Shakespeaxe are "both modes of allegorizing; whereas the medieval abstraction has the effect of simplifying character, to the point where it is summed up tn a single word— Folly, Flattery, Deceit— Shakespeare's disguise often has the effect of presenting new facets of an individual character (as in the case of Rosalind), or, if vre look at it with an appetite for generality, we find that the general proposition is far from that which will fit in the compass of a single noun. Shakespeare uses disguise metaphorically, as a spectacle to represent some character trait, something going on within a character. The assumption of disguise, the way it is employed, or the way in which it is recognized may offer indirect statements regarding character. In Coriolanus the spectacle of disguise has meaning that actually extends beyond matters of character. Inasmuch as Coriolanus and his political import is the continual focus of the play. All is subordinate to it— subsidiary characters, the backgroxmd of family and populace—all functioning as chorlc echoes or commentaries on the problem of Coriolanus. In Coriolanus we find that disguise is used partly as it was in Henry V , for the purpose of putting a character In another role temporarily to accentuate some quality about him. After Coriolanus is banished from Rome and has taken leave of his family, he disguises

PAGE 78

Ik himself as a beggar and proceeds to Antitun to join forces with his rival, Aufidius, against Rome. There is a very practical reason for Coriolanus' assuming this disguise. He naturally would not wish to risk being identified and perhaps assaulted by his former enemies, before he has an opportunity to declare his friendly intentions. Beyond this practical reason for the disguise, the warrior's concealment has ironic implications with regard to the characterization of Coriolanus that is developed thro\ighout the play. An explanation of these ironic overtones necessitates a review of the characterization and actions of the central figure, Coriolanus. The play is concerned with the downfall of an individual dominated by driving pride and a straining after superhvanan standards. His pride and standards are so lofty that even praise is despicable to him. Placing Coriolanus in an atmosphere of social and political opposition, Shalcespeare presents a man whose understanding of his relation to Rome will not allow him to do the things necessary to acquire the title which will satisfy his personal pride; yet when he tries to compromise with his nature, when he humbles himself to be something he despises, he can no longer function as a whole person. His destiny is enacted against a setting of opposition, one which brings to a critical test Coriolanus' ability to compromise with his nature— to debase himself in his own eyes by appearing before the commoners and displaying his wounds in order to receive the consulship. APtei an agonizing conflict as to whether or not he can force himself to this humiliating posture, Coriolanus lays aside his convictions of nobility and attempts to d?ulflll the role which

PAGE 79

I 75 his family and political associates press uijon him. Appearing before the people, Coriolanus holds up just so long; at last his temper and characteristic hatred of the populace brealc throuch. As a result, he is banished from Rome. Inappropriate clothing, like the setting of social opposition, provides a means through which we con trace the fall of Coriolanus, The literal, eye-deceiving disguise situation in Antium represents a larger — indeed the comprehensive — situation which forces Coriolanus to assume a pose in conflict with his own self-esteem. Repeatedly Coriolanus cannot pretend to be v;hat he isn't; even when he assvunes the pose of a beggar and is therefore treated as one, he cannot maintain this attitude. In a sense, Coriolanus temperamentally cannot assume a disguise. He cannot do so because he cannot debase himself to the extent that he despises himself; no matter what the cireumstancies, he must attempt to remain true to his sense of nobility and personal pride. His attitudes are always recognized by the popvilace for what they are. The play opens with the angry discussion of the mutinous citizens, who perceive well enough the character of Coriolanus, All agree that Coriolanus is proud and seeks personal satisfaction in his public life and that he is constrained this way by his nature and is victimized thereby. In Act II several officers discuss the inability of Coriolanus to dissemble. The second officer explains the attitvide of the warrior: Faith there hath been many great men that have flatter 'd the people, who ne'er loved them; and there be many that they have loved, they know not wherefore; so that, if they love they know not why, they hate upon no better a ground.

PAGE 80

76 Therefore, for CoriolanuG neither to care whether they love or hate him manifests the true knowledge he has in their disposition, and out of his noble carelessness, lets them plainly see't. (lI.ii.7-17) Entreated to display his vrounds and receive the consulship, Coriolanus pleads, "Let me o'erleap that custom; for I cannot/ Put on the gown, stand naked and entreat them. For raj' wound's sake to give their suffrage." (Il.ii.llf0-lit2) Succumbing to Menenius, Coriolanus at last api)ears in the govm of humility. He carries off the pose satisfactorily, but not without a sense of inner tension through his imposture. He is eager to relieve himself of the dissembling garb. May I change these garments? Sic. You may sir. Cor, That I'll straight do, and, knowing myself again. Repair to th' Senate -house. (II. iii. 153-155) * The tension between appeareince and reality is further emphasized in the speech of Brutus, just after Coriolanus leaves to talce off his gown. "VJith u proud heart he wore his humble weeds," (ll.iii.l6l) Projected against this bacl^round the disguise spectacle in Antium provides poetic reinforcement to both the character of Coriolanus and his situation. By having Coriolanus again try to dissemble in clothe:; that conflict with his nature, Shakespeare forces his audience into a realization, too, that Coriolanus has changed; he is less patient in T carrying through the imposture. A sense of dramatic movement and accvmiulating conflict results, vitalizing the action by forcing comparisons. As in the previous scene, before the commoners, Coriolanus enacts a false role, but only up to a point. A servant at Aufidius'

PAGE 81

77 house asks the heggaxed Coriolanus to leave. What have you to do here , fellow? . Pray you, avoid the house. Cor, Let rae but stand;/ I will not hvirt your hearth. 3, Serv. \fliat are you? Cor, A gentleman. 3 Serv. A raarv'llous poor one. Cor. True, so I am. Considering Coriolanus* hatred and repulsion of common people, he had to exercise restraint here, in adapting himself to a beggar's role. But when the servant continues. Pray you, poor gentleman, talce up some other station; there's no place for you. Pray you, avoid. Come. Coriolanus must be himself as he says. Follow yovu: function, go and batten on cold bits, pushing the servant away from him. Coriolanus' inability to disguise his real natvure is also reflected in the comments made between these servants, after they discover who "the beggar" really is, "Yet my mind gave me his clothes made a false report of him," said the second servant, and "I thought there was more in him than I could think," said another; these comments reinforce the suggestion prevalent in the play that Coriolanus' nature, though proud and untactful, is yet fearfully admirable and propelled by an almost supernatural spirit that connot be covered by actions, words, or disguise. Disguise, then, adds another level through indirect, poetic means, to the multiple statements made about Coriolanus' nature and his fall. The disguise episode is in itself a symbol of something

PAGE 82

78 * 1 that the whole play is involved in demonstrating. V/hen disguise is conceived thus metaphorically or for purposes of character revelation, literal plausibility of the disguise is irrelevant. Shakespeare has too frequently been criticized on the basis of the implausibility of his disguises or the inconsistency between the complexity of the disguise and the ease with which it is discerned, and so forth. This kind of criticism arises, it seems, from too prosaic an approach to the artifices of Shaltespeare . Everyone familiar with Shalcespeare's drama can recall many instances of what Aristotle so aptly labels probable impossibilities. Carefully leading his aiidience from the real to the poetically possible, Shakespeare creates a plausible wor3jd and one vfhich Elizabethans grevj up on, so to speak. The whole theatrical scene — daylight, unimaginative props, male actors, and so forth — compelled the aiadience into imaginative habits of perception, iXnother factor leading to the acceptance of the artifices was the tone of consistency in all the improbabilities. Thus if Shakespeare TSie usefulness of disguise may go beyond interests of characterization, reaching into matters of theme. Disguise provides the artificial means for allowing a character to demonstrate some quality that is important to the general meaning of the play. This will be examined more intensively in Chapter IV. For a brief example: Viola's love is constant and abiding; it survives apart from direct declarations. Hgw arc we to know then of the nature of her love, which differs so from that of the Duke and Olivia? Through the spectacle of disgxiise. Through the double talk permitted by disguise Viola can both conceal and disclose her love. Her disguise is a reminder to the audience of her nature. It is rather like a sign worn by the morality actor, because Viola's presence on the stage is a constant referent to her meaning, Kent, in King Lear , functions similarly. Through disguise the exiled Kent can retvirn as a servant to Lear; thus he is put in a position in which his loyalty and hutfiillty can be exercised. His presence on the stage keeps Lear's folly in remembrance. His disguise permits the indirect assertion of a quality

PAGE 83

79 presents a character disguised in a merely physically unconvincing disguise, the disgtdlse is not destined to dramatic ineffectiveness, if the total atmosphere of the play testifies to an unabashed invitation to accept it as the aclcnowledged artifice. Disguise is more easily talcen as a sort of spectacle, as emblematic, if other artifices or stylizations support this meaning. The Greek mask and the Noh mask depend for their effectiveness upon an established atmosphere of stylized and dignified, almost liturgical representation. Cori olanus shares some of this atmosphere of the Greek spectacle through the choric-like public, the entreaties of the family, and so forth. Setting, for example, may combine with disguise in the creation of an imaginatively true artifice. In As You Like It , as we have seen, it is possible through disguise to isolate the qualities in Rosalind that would be difficult to present otherwise, without sacrificing her attractive feminine quality. Rosalind in disguise has a structural function that is similar to the function of the Forest of Arden setting in that both disguise and setting facilitate the simultaneous presentation .of disparate ideas. It is quite apparent that Shakespeare's Forest of Arden, made up as it is out of heterogeneous elements, established the improbable but poetically plausible setting necessary to the suspension of one's disbelief. It serves as a non -realistic, artificieQ. arrangement through \diich love and ways of life can be seen unobstructed by that is essential to the meaning of the play. Loyalty and disloyalty, pride and humility ore inescapable themes of King Lear . Chapter V will pursue these matters further.

PAGE 84

80 distracting details of the familiar world. Rosalind, similarly, is freed by disguise from many of the restrictions imposed by real life upon the feminine role . Shakespeare takes liberties with disguise and setting that need not be disturbing. It might be distressing to notice that the ease with which disguises are recognized does not always depend upon the concealing ability of the disguise. Although Henry V is able to completely conceal his regal personage by wrapping Erpingham's cloak about his shoulder, Bottom, who is completely biiried beneath the head of an ass, is nevertheless easily recognizable by his fellow craftsmen. Beneath the ease or difficulty with which these disguises may be penetrated lies Shakespeare's over -all purposes in the particular play. Appropriate to the character himself or to his perceiver, Coriolanus does not succeed in his disguise; Lear never does recognize the disguised Kent, and various partial recognitions are suggested (Gloucester, and in Cymbeline ) , in keeping with the situations and the personalities of the deltided characters . Shakespeare's use of disguise was a highly economical expository device for characterization. As we noted earlier, Freebtirg admires a playwright's dramatic compression through which two persons are represented in one. He illustrates the value of such duality by citing Chapman's Widow's Tears. Chapman found a story containing a dead husband, a widow, and a soldier lover. He arranged his source in a new, more economical framework; the husband was merely supposedly dead .but really alsgulsed as the soldier lover. Thus Chapman "actually eliminated a

PAGE 85

81 character, but multiplied the dramatic results." This sort of dramatic economy refers to the compression of quantities of characters through disguise. Also the two characters of the disguised person include the personality maintained for the companions, who are deceived, and the other personality for the spectators who are not deceived. The coalescing personalities are the real and the fictitious, Freeburg values dramatic economy for the compression of quantities of characters through disguise; but Slialtespeare'c disguise upon occasion goes beyond this sort of economy to the enlargement of qualities of character, as it provides a new, humanizing dimension in Henry V and a more complete characterization of Rosalind. Shakespeare's economy not only saves but earns something. It has the effect of the poetic artifice. Through formal restriction essential and subtle meanings can best be liberated, as in the pun or in the repetition of a word which forces one into making comparisons and contrasts . The dramatic effectiveness and general usefulness of disguise can be examined in the light of a more conventional expository device --the soliloquy or the aside. Opinions on the dramatic value of these devices vary. William Archer's comment is of special interest because it places the soliloquy in a relationship with visiial expository devices notable in medieval drama. " A d>rama with soliloquies and asides is like a picture with inscribed labels issuing from the mouths of the figures. In that way any bungler can reveal what is passing in the minds of his "Treeburg, p. 15 .

PAGE 86

82 personages." Arthur C. Sprague's study in teclmiques of exposition commends the use of the soliloquy enthusiastically; it is first in importance 2 among all the conventions Shalcespeare employed for expository purposes. In soliloquies and asides "character and motive are unfolded, plot and oouncounterplot set going; events narrated, and the issues of the play made 3 clear." Expressed in these generalities Sprague would seem to be correct. However, "plot and coxmterplot" are not always "set going" hy soliloquy. It tends to be a retarding device which may be detrimental to the movement of any particular play. In Henry V disguised talk and soliloquy appear side by side, making possible an easy comparison, one which reveals the advantage of disguise in keeping the plot moving and more compactly constructed. The extended scenes in which Henry appeared in disguise served r.iultiple purposes as compared with the limited function and effect of the soliloqioy. Also, soliloquy reveals character -admittedly-but v;hat if the soliloquizing cliaracter is not by nature strongly reflective? It is improbable that he would express himself through soliloquy. There imAst be an appropriateness between the established character and his modes of revealing himself. •'William Archer, Play-Malcing (London: Chapman and Hall Ltd., 1912), p. 307. ^Arthxir C, Sprague, Shakespeare and the Audience; A Study in the Technique of Exposition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935), p. 62. ^Ibid., p. 72.

PAGE 87

83 Harley Granville -Barker offers insights into this problem. He discusses Shakespeare's use of soliloquy in relation to his increasing concern with elucidating character. "What he learns to do is so to vivify and dramatize soliloquy that, the convention accepted, the illusion of character will not he broken." "Dramatizing soliloquy" is in Shakespeare close to techniques of exposition through dual-personality devices, to be defined and analyzed in Chapter V. Granville -Barker notes that Shakespeare "as he advances in mastery, either turns it [soliloquy] to significant account or largely does without it." It is interesting to examine the expository devices employed in these cases in which Shakespeare eschevra soliloquy. In the tragedies which focus upon introspective character, the soliloquy is used with great effectiveness and with delicate appropriateness to character and the play's larger framevrark of meanings. The very act of soliloquizing as well as its revealing content is of expository value and is also in keeping with the plays' tempo and rhythms in Hamlet , Macbeth , and Othello (lago). Vftiere the heroes are by nature men of action new modes of exposition must be utilized. One of these modes is disguise. 3 •'•Harley Granville-Barker and G. B. Harrison, A Companion to Shakespeare Studies (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1937 )> P« 69. ^ Ibld ., p. 69. 3a stimulating discussion of the disguise of Rosalind and Viola appears in a recent short stvidy of Wolfgang Clemen \rtiich has , come to my attention since -the completion of this present study: Schein und Sein Bei Shakespeare (Munchen: Akademle der V/issenschaften, 1959T^ There axe gratifying points of agreement between our contentions. However, whereas ray interest is in the use of disguise for a communication from the dramatist to the audience, Clemen— concerned with many aspects of schein and sein — observes that disguise is a f orm througih which the disguised character's own being becomes more painfully conscious to him and through which he comes to know himself more fully.

PAGE 88

CHAPTER IV MISAPPREHENSION AND MISCONCEPTION IN COMEDIES OF ERRORS "Our very eyes are, sometimes like owe judgments, blind." ( Cymbeline IV.ii.302) While disguise is useful for purposes of characterization, it may possess so maaiy correspondences with other dramatic statements in a given play that it acquires the force of a symbol, the symbol of a concept which encompasses the meaning of the play. Disguise thereby serves as the most conspicuous reinforcement for a structure of false ideas or misconceptions upon which the play is built. False physical appearances, that is misapprehension, together with misunderstandings, support a framework of wrong attitudes which must be righted before the dramatic action rests. This alliance of misapprehension and mieconception can be found throughout Shakespeare's work— in his drama and poems— and within the dramatic tradition both before and after Shakespeare's time, as we shall see. Shakespeare begins to ally misapprehension and misconception in the early comedies, but Twelfth Night will be found to express Shakespeare's developed interest in "blind Judgments"— in the relationship between seeing and perceiving. That Shakespeare was consciously attentive to the alliance between misapprehension and mi svinder standing appears not only in the organization of his plays but also in explicit statements at all points in his career. Analogies or Juxtapositions of one's perceptions and 84

PAGE 89

85 one's judgment occur in both the plays and sonnets, Imogen, seeing the^ dead body of Cloten but mistrusting her eyesight, says, "Our very eyes are, sometimes like our Judgments, blind," ( Cymbeline IV.ii.302) while in Henry V mention is made of young maids, who are "blind though they have their eyes." ( Henry V V,ii.336) Much use is made of the analogy between perceiving and conceiving in the sonnets, the most extensive use being found in sonnet 73^ "That tune of year thou mayst in me behold." The sonnet obviously breaks into three sections, each involving imagery that intensifies the transiency of the speaker's life and the imminence of his death. Each image concerns a visually perceived object, clearly portrayed as such: "That time of year thou mayst in me behold" ; "In me thou see'st the twilight of such day"; "In me thou see'st the glowing of such fires"; and finally, in summation, "this thou perceiv'st , which makes thy love more strong,/ To love that well which thou must leave ere long." In several of the sonnets Shakespeare's "love-is-blind" interest crops up. Again, seeing falsely is inextricably bound together with judging falsely. In sonnet 137 the writer laments, Thou blind fool. Love, what dost thou to mine eyes That they behold, and see not what they see? Why of eyes' falsehood,, hast thou forged hooks, Whereto the judgment of my heart is tied? The false perspective of love is again behind the plaintive cry of sonnet 1^8: me, what eyes hath Love put in my head, Which have no correspondence with true sight I

PAGE 90

86 The accusation and queries recur in sonnet I50. The dramatic tradition behind Elizabethan drama also exemplifies the viewing of false appearance and false attitudes together. Although the secular, Plautine comedies of errors depended entirely upon mistaken physical appearances for their complication and denouement, earlier dramatic use of disguise aligned misunderstanding with misapprehension. For example, in Euripides' Bacchae, the god disguises himself as a mortal; the disguise is effective and the king treats him with contempt. The king is both unaware of the true physical identity of the disguised Bacchus and skeptical of the very existence of the diety. Gviilty of the sin of hubris , the king exults in his own eminence.The error of his thinking is made dramatically effective through the visually perceived spectacle — the ironic presence of the disguised god. In other religiously oriented drama, disguise is also symbolic. As we have seen in Chapter III, the morality play tradition gradually linked false physical appearance with mentally undiscerned qualities or false attitudes. At first the well-intending "everyman" was confused in his moral discernment because of impersonators. In Magnificence it was just as difficxilt to distinguish between wrong and right as between Counterfeit Countenaunce and his impersonation— Good Demeyaunce. Vices not only dissembled through the assumption of telee names but through falBe appearances: in keeping with a late medieval trend in ecclesiastical satire, the garb usually employed for the masquerade of Vice was that of the friar, as in Satire of the Three Estates. Gradually the false appearances became more individual and

PAGE 91

^ 87 specific. In The Marriage of Wit and Wisdom Idleness is not always recognized as such, whether conceptually or perceptually, because he appears as a doctor, "beggar, priest, and so forth. In all these cases, the misapprehension of a disguised person exists as a commentary upon the inscrutability of moral qualities. That this coupling of misapprehension and misconception is not to be relegated to a merely historical interest but is almost inevitable in a drama that scrutinizes the human predicament is clear. Religious and moral symbolistic disguise appears elLso in modern drama. The ten. dency to equate perceptual blindness of some sort to conceptual blindness is deep-rooted and ubiquitous. Charles Rann Kennedy's The Servant in the House , a poetic drama of the early twentieth century, in the manner of Ibsen, involves the disguise of Manson, who poses as the new servant in the house of his brother, a Vicar. Despite their faqades of righteousness, the vicar and his associates are corrupt and selfish, specifically in their program for building a new church, Manson, who is not only the long absent brother but actually God incarnate, effects a reform of the chvtrch and the Vicar's household, which necessitates a thorough cLeanlag of the putrid drains and rotten foundations of the old church. Repellent in his capacity as a begrimed sewage worker, he is nevertheless finally recognized for the beauty and integrity that underlie mere outward appearance. Outward appearance is proved to be deceiving both in disguised virtue (Manson) and disguised evil (the Vicar). Needless to say, the relationship between error and

PAGE 92

deceptive physical appearance is fundamental to the full impact of the play's didactic purpose. Forces of evil are also, in modern drama ,-by this means represented as diffic\ilt to discern. Whereas it is primarily God who is inscrutable in Kennedy's play, the Devil is the illusive character in Ferenc ^folnar'8 The Devil . The Inability to recognize evil is in the course of the action rapidly equated with the inability of the characters to recognize Dr. Miller, who is actually the Devil. The drama of the Elizabethans, like that of Plautus, employed mistaken identity most conspicuously for the comic complication of plot. In The Comedy of Errors we do not have to meditate for a single moment over the inability of the two Dromios to distinguish their masters. Dromio of Ephesus, for example, simply cotild not distinguish his master, Antipholus of Ephesus and his identical twin. Dromio was far too busy carrying messages and dodging a thrashing to wonder whether his Inability to distinguish his "true" master symbolized his Inability to discern between God and the Devil, Matters of false perception and comical, erroneous actions dominate the plays growing from the Plautlne tradition. Matters of theme and characterization only faintly intrude into the low comedy of situation. Twelfth Night is the outstanding example in Shakespeare's drama of the combination of the mistaken identity framework with his mature dramatic interests, involving Indirect means to explore truth— mistaken ideas as a means of canvassing the nature of truth In a specific situation. The success of his mature use of disguise is best seen when we

PAGE 93

89 compare Twelfth Night with his eaxlier comedies : The Comedy of Errors , Love's Labour's Lost , The Two Gentlemen of Verona, and A Midsummer Night's Dream— all of which depend upon mistaken identity and indicate ^ Shakespeare's growing concern with integrating misapprehension and misconception. The Comedy of Errors is entirely dependent on mistaken identity for its plot construction. And in this play, as indeed in the other three plays mentioned above, mistaken identity is used more extensively than in any known sources. Shakespeare explores the comic effect of disguise, doubling the use of mistaken identity over Plautus. In no other play, however, does Shakespeare use mistaken identity apart from some elements of a theme based upon misunderstanding or misconception. ^ Disguise begins to serve new interests in Love's Laboiir's Lost . It is used sparingly for comic complication. The play is not a comedy of situation, but a comedy of wit that develops a theme. The action is neither initiated nor resolved through the misidentities immanent in disguise. Disguise is not the basis for the main sittiation of the plot; that is, the rejection of women by the would-be scholars of Navarre, the siibsequent betrayal of their scheme, and the final acknowledgment of their folly. The basic sitxxation involves misconception, not mlsT apprehension. The scholars have agreed to pursue knowledge to her very sources, to seEurch for "things hid and barr'd . . . from common sense." (l.i.57) In pursuing the depths of truth, however, they must come to realize that "truth falsely blinds" the eyesight to more fundamental truths that must be acceded to in practical living. Any ideas of

PAGE 94

90 self -development — learning, specifically — niust take into consideration that we are human beings living in a human world, which consists of women as well as scholars. The pact to ignore vromen is broken by every scholar, for as Biron concludes, Young blood doth not obey an old decree. We cannot cross the cause why we were born; (V.iii.17-18) And in another speech. From women's eyes this doctrine I derive; They are the ground, the books, the academes From whence doth spring the true Promethean fire. (lV.iii.302-30l^) The main action of the play involves the change of the scholars to a more r.ialistic, common sense attitude towards their too idealistic, scholarly goals. Has this original delusion and the enlightenment that follows any relation to the elements of disguise appearing in the play? The relationship between misconception and misapprehension in Love ' s Labour's Lost appears to be casual. The folly of the men is somewhat highliglited, however, by their inability to recognize the disguised women. By the end of Act IV the men, having discovered that they have all surreptitiously engaged in amorous schemes, adopt a more practical and honeSb attitude toward themselves. Disguise has nothing to do with thematic revelation and change of character. In the last act, disguise produces comic effects. Perhaps to reiterate and vivify the iBvportance of women, the Princess of France and her retinue have invariably had the edge on the men. This is

PAGE 95

91 especially true here when the men of Navarre, who disguise themselves as Muscovites to court the women of France, are again following a scheme which is frustrated by the women. Upon discovery of the "Muscovites'" approach, the ladies mask themselves and exchange favors to confuse their identities, thus meeting the oncoming disguise with a disguise of their own. The men had earlier assvmed a pose through v*iich they pursued truth, finding eventually that "truth falsely blinds"; now they assume a disguise and find that the real identities of the various women lie hidden beneath the misleading, false outward or superficial appearance. Thus they confront a false appearance, while still acting on the basis of a false assvunption. Through the merriment of the dual disguise, the men again eventually appear ridiculous; and the folly of their original plan to disregard women is even more emphatically exposed in this disguise situation, because the scholar -lovers had intended to save face and avoid admitting their imprudence through their incognito love-raalcing. Their transformation takes a further step; they must not only acknowledge the necessary existence of women, but they must be willing to reveal themselves for what they are. Disguise and theme thus come into common focus even in Shakespeare's early drama and indicate his developing concern in probing the surfaces of appearance and assumption. In Love's Labour's Lost, a play of wit, double entendres , and the love chase, disguise is not merely an agent of comic complication; it has a function that relates to something outside itself. In its gestvire towards bringing theme and disguise into some sort of focus. Love's Labour's Lost preflgvires

PAGE 96

92 Shake speaxe ' s more mature, thoroughgoing accomplishment in Twelfth Might . Shakespeare first uses the disguised female page-a contrihution of Italian comedy — in The Two Gentlemen of Verona , As in Love's Laboiur's Lost J Shakespeare is interested in mistaken identity not merely as the provocation for a comic situation, but as it is instrumental in the exploration of a theme. Accordingly, as Freeburg notes, Shakespeare's method in this play varies significantly from that of the Italian dramatists. The disguise of Julia as a man is not, for example, counterbalanced by the disguise of Proteus as a woman-that would have been the Italian way. Shakespeare's method, as we shall see, is indicative of his interest in focusing attention upon the character of the disguised female— compare also Rosalind and Viola—rather than in producing great complexity of plot. Disguise in The Two gentlemen of Verona is put to serious use in the exploration of loyalty and disloyalty in friendship and loveloyalty as it is embodied in Julia, who faithfully" loves Proteus, and disloyalty, in Proteus. AJPter Proteus is sent by his father to Milan, Julia follows him, disguised as the page, Sebastian, and is instrumental in advancing his love suit with Silvia. Silvia, however, was first claimed as lover by Valentine, friend of Proteus. Proteus emerges, then, as an tinfaithful friend and lover. The constant and patient love of Julia, which is antithetical to jPreeburg, p. 70«

PAGE 97

93 the fickle love of Proteus, 1g evident through the speech and action allowed her because of disguise, as Proteus' page. Her frequent presence, ostensibly as a page though she is really herself, serves as a constant reminder of her rights and the quality of her love, both of which provide a perspective that diminishes Proteus. While thus disguised, Jiaia is a first-hand witness of his infidelity; yet she remains true to Proteus and to an ideal of loyalty held also by Valentine and Silvia — one by which Proteus himself finally acts. Up to this point Proteus is blind both to the allegiance he owes Julia and to her identity when she is disguised. He is corrected on both accounts. Because of the relationship between mistaken appearances and mistaken affection and the similarity between Julia and her situation and Viola and hers. The Two Gentlemen of Verona can be regarded, together with The Comedy of Errors and Love's Labovir's Lost , as elemental in the creation o f Twelfth Night . Shakespeare explores the connections between mistaken identity and mistaken affection in another early comedy, A Midstamner Night's Dream . In this play no formal elements of disguise appear, although it is akin to the original comedy of situation based on mistaken identity. The characters are less troubled by misleading physical appearance than by misteOcen affections. The original spirit of the mistaken identity play prevails: a web of complication and a general atmosphere of "things not being what they seem to be" unite the two types of comedy. The action of A Midsummer Night's Dream is similar to that

PAGE 98

9h of Twelliih Night insofar as 'both plays Taegin with characters who have false objects of affection and end with the union of true Irvers. An interpretation of Twelfth Night based upon its mistaicen identities and mistRken attitvides does more justice to the play than the more usual interpretations of the meaning of the whole play. Interpretations of Twelfth Night tend towards one of two extremes: the play is taken as a loosely constructed farce or as a serious study of social struggle— or, at any rate, as a play whose meaning is dependent upon topical references. A program from a recent enactment of the play gives the following description: It [ Twelfth Night ] is a hodgepodge of foolishness, put together for our entertainment, seasoned with high comedy, low comedy, good hvunor, bad puns, roistering rowdyism, gentle dignity, fine poetry, false courage, and appalling inconsistency. It has no more serious intent than a musical comedy or extravaganza. . . .1 The same play that provoked this statement stimulated another critic, John Draper, to say that Twelfth Night is "the comedy of the social struggles of the time"; it is "Shakespeare's play of social security." The unity of the play--so runs this argument— resides in a search, on various planes, for security. To add weight to his argvmient. Draper de-emphasizes qualities that savor of romance. Twelfth Kight is most frequently regarded as a play of love; Draper remonstrates: "TEaken from a program used for a University of Connecticut production of Twelfth Night at Storrs, Connecticut, 1959, 2 John W, Draper, The Twelfth Night of Shakespeare's Audience (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1950), p, 250,

PAGE 99

95 But, if love were the theme, would not at least one of these courtships, as in Much Mo , follow normal Eliza"bethan convention? But in each case, the girl, unaided and unadvised, chooses the man, an unusual procedxirein actual Elizabethan life. In Twelfth Night neither father nor brother nor next of kin bestows the hand of Viola, Maria, or Olivia.-^ Draper's assumed premise --that a play of love is a play involving conventional courtship — is disputable. Furthermore, Viola, the romantic heroine in the love chases, does not "linaided , , . choose the man," The quality of her constant, passive and altruistic love to the Ihike, only indirectly revealed, is in sharp contrast to the ill-founded, overly verbal and assertive passion of Olivia for her lover. Emphasizing the realistic problem of attaining social security. Draper also tones down the "poetic cast" and the "etherial" atmosphere of the play. ^ Illyria is tied down to the "then and there" as closely as Draper can tie it, but the very attempt to give the setting and action of the play a temporal and topical framework helps to accentuate the illusiveness and "what -you -will" atmosphere permeating Twelfth Night . Leslie Hotson's study. The First Night of Twelfth Night, constructs a possible first performance of the play and suggests several topical allusions. Hotson vividly pieces together \diat he concludes to be the scene of this first performance, depending largely upon actual Ibid ,, pp. 2lv7-2l^8, ^ Ibid ., p. 211^,

PAGE 100

96 accounts of the Twelfth Wight festivities for his re-creation. However to explain the play topically — even if we were to grant Hot son success in his attempt— does not do full justice to its meaning. The perennial success of Twelfth Might has obviously been dependent not upon occasional allusions but upon basic structures of universal occiorrence, common to human experience apart from conditions of time and place. These basic structures are those of misidentity and misunderstanding, which account for all the con^jlication of the play, False love and true love, delusion and disguise, inconstancy and constancy dominate the play and impose a sense of structvire upon the variety of incidents making up Twelfth Night , The play is typical of Shakespeare comedy in the respect that it is about love. The unity of the play, however, does not— indeed, cannot— reside merely in this interest, however central it is: love here is subsumed into the larger design and becomes only the most conspicuous expression of the delusion-reality theme. The play's concern with ways of looking at love is part of the pervasive preoccupation with false appear 1 ances and false ideas. Disguise in Twelfth Night has a metaphorical function in the characterization of Viola and in the over-all structvire of the playj %ith a viewpoint similar to my own Joseph H. Summers' "The Masks of Twelfth Night," The University of Kansas City Review. II (Autumn, 1955)* 25-32, is concerned with the extensive mask-like quality of various poses assumed by the characters. That is, they have "masks," We lauflh at those who don't see the mask they have assumed. Characters are explicated in terms of their posesj Malvolio and Sir Andrew, for example, "fail to perceive the comic gaps between themselves and their ideal roles."

PAGE 101

97 disguise stands for, represents in itself, the faulty appeaxances or misconceptions which provide the impetus for the action. Twelfth Night incorporates the traditional plot of misidentity not only through its use of the twin situation and disguise hut through its preoccupation \d.th the confusion that grows from raisimder standing; from mental misidentity. And both misidentities are manifestations of a single, more "basic, disability to recognize that things are not always what they seem to be. AUL of the main characters but Viola are confused by misunderstanding the sotirces or objects of their love. The resulting confusion is expressed as a sort of madness conditioned by a multitude of things that are not what they seem to be. Twelfth Night examines false attitudes that are. everywhere apparent. Delusions are evident most clearly in false attitudes about love. Olivia, for example, is self -deluded into a false display of affection for her dead brother; the form or expression of her mourning is incommensurate with her actual feeling. Also her over-hasty passion for Viola shows her capacity for indiscriminate and misdirected love. Olivia, self-absorbed, acquisitive and voracious in her love, is sharply in contrast to Viola, who patiently bears her devotion to the Dulce in silence. More altruistic than Olivia, she seeks his happiness, and, ironically, willingly promotes his suit for Olivia, much as Julia served Proteus and with something like the same degree of determination to succeed. The Duke is similar to Olivia in the highly verbal and formal expression of a love that is nevertheless hollow and inconstant. In

PAGE 102

98 love with the form and expression of love, the Duke pursues sentiment with a desperation that implies the artificiality of the feeling. It is as though his passion is sustained only by music, invocations to the spirit of love, and the effects of auto-suggestion. Though he avows the constancy of the male lover, and especially his own devotion, his inconstancy is eventually reveeuLed. VJhen it is discovered that Olivia has centered her affection upon Caesar io, the Duke passionately denounces Olivia. He is not constant when circianstances are emphatically adverse and is therefore a foil to Viola, whose love is neither fed by auto-suggestion nor conditioned by the prospect of attainment. The Duke is wrong about the nature of his feeling for Olivia; he is wrong about Viola, blind as he is to her concealed identity and the constancy of affection of which she is capable. He had declared that no woman's heart could hold the love like his. (ll.v. 96-99). Wrong attitudes — or blindnesses— axe displayed in every incident of ^pyelfbh Night , not just those involving the Duke, Olivia and Viola. Sir Andrew Aguecheek trusts to mere form in courtship — a few pretty conceits, an ability to dance, and so forth; in emphasizing these he is blind to larger issues. He cannot see himself, imagining that he might become Olivia's husband and relying upon those ineffectual mannerisms through which an admirer is supposed to achieve the favor of his lover, Malvolio, too, suffers from the delusion, first of all, that he is a probable suitor for Olivia. The main source of the humor that

PAGE 103

99 14alvolio provokes grows out of his inability to see himself. His rigidity and unwarranted self-esteem depend upon his regELTding himself vrithin a narrow context. He is similar to Aguecheek in his lack of perspective. In error throughout the play, Malvolio habitually cannot see what is to be seen. He is vinable also to see the absurdity of his costume— replete with yellovr hose and cross garters; he completely mistakes the probable effect of his own appearance. At last, desperate and befuddled, from his dark place of imprisonment he entreats Sir Topas, the curate (actusLLly Feste, the clo\m) to deliver him. 14alvollo is so blind to real circumstances that, as Maria recognizes, the clown need not have even assumed a disguise to have deluded him. Speai:ing to Feste, Maria concludes: "Thou mightst have done this vrithout thy beard and gown. He sees thee not." (lV.ii.69-70) To continue the listing of confused persons, v^ntonio mistakes Viola for Sebastian; officers falsely conclude that Antonio is mad; Aguecheek mistakes Sebastian for his supposed rival, Caesario; Sebastian concl\ades--how rightly and wrongly',— that Feste, \fho mistakes him for Viola, is a fool; Olivia is convinced by Maria that Malvolio is irrational — "tainted in's ^d.ts"; and so forth. Twelfth Night appears to be Indeed another "comedy of errors." This listing of misconceptions (forms of madness, according to the play) includes many types of misapprehension, some of which are explained simply as complications relevant to disguise and the misidentity of the twins. However, much of the mistinderstanding lies in, or is paralleled by, a more fundamental inability on the paort of several of the characters to see themselves or

PAGE 104

100 1 to grasp realistically and within a complex framework the nature of their relationships to other characters. In this general framework of faulty appearances, the conventional media of micidentity are emblematic of the prevailing symptoms of blindness which permeate the play and constitute the comic situations. In Twelfth Might Shakespeare fixes attention upon disguise, a detail which epitomizes a whole situation. Shakespeare, concerned with getting at the heart of things, constantly examines not only false attitudes but also outward forms -appearances or exteriors and their relation to what really is. There are many forms which do not express what they should according to the tradition which interprets them; they are misleading. In Twelfth Night conventional attitudes towards the significance of clothes axe found to be erroneous. Mourning clothes, the appropriate outward expression of an inward state, are misleading, Olivia's outward habit— supposedly the emblem of her mourning — is not congruent with her real feelings and hides them for a time. On the other hand, the real nature of Viola, who is disguised as a man, is revealed throiagh what would be considered as incongruent attire. Viola "never told her love" as she says to the Duke by way of spealcing of her "sister." Disguise does not simply cause Viola's disinclination to express hdr love; it is a symbol of this trait. Viola's love is such that the fact of her appearing in disguise is a fair representation of one of its aspects. Thereby the patience, devotion, and silent self-sacrifice of her love are emblematized, while at the same time, her love is allowed

PAGE 105

101 expression because she is able to speak in the person represented by her disgiiise. The disguise of Coriolanus has been interpreted as an ironic commentary upon his inability to disguise his nature; Viola's disguise is a corroentary upon her characteristic inclination — or at least ability— to hide her feelings, even while she is displaying them. The clothing of Olivia provides an inadequate representation of her feelings just as Henry V's feelings were hidden beneath the import of his ceremonial dress. In the world of Henry V ceremonial dress vrns unquestionably the sign of intrinsic dignity, nobility and almost unhuman fortitude Yet, as Henry's soliloquy points out, the ceremonial gaxb is the sign of a role the man must play, reflecting nothing of the feaj and common sentiments which represent his basic humanity, king though he is. On the other hand, the disguise of Erpingham's cloak— a form inappropriate for the king as king— provided a means through which he could reveal himself. A teasing example of misleading clothing in Twelfth Night is that of the fool. Motley, the sign of the fool, was traditionally indicative of the nature of its wearer. Feste, however,, corrects the assumption that clothes adequately reveal the wearer. His vrords, "I wear no motley in my brain," (l.v.62) recall the querie of Rosalind, which corrects a well-established attitvide that male attire produces a perversion: "Dost thou think ... I have a doublet or hose in my disposition?" (Ill.ii.20l4-206J Also, in Measure for Measure , Luclo

PAGE 106

102 speaking of Friaar Lodovrick^ says "' '.CucuHus non facit monachum .' Honesftin nothing Taut in his clothes." (V.i.263) Another form that should disclose but actually conceals is the artificial, Petraarchan love conceit, employed "by Viola in her courtship of Olivia for Orsino. An acceptable mode of revealing true feeling, the artifice of the conceit nevertheless conveys only superficial sincerity; it transmits no sense of emotional truthfulness and is therefore a good form for Viola to hide behind. Through a conventional device she does not have to display any emotional sincerity, but can rely wholly upon complimentary fixed forms, Viola begs of Olivia an audience for the message she has learned with great pains. The Duke, according to Viola, loves Olivia With adorations, with fertile tears. With groans that thunder love, with sighs of fire. (l.v.27^-275) And later Viol, If I did love you in ray master's flame. With such a suff'ring, such a deadly life. In your denial I would find no sense. Make me a willow cabin at your gate. And call upon my soul within the house; V/rite loyal cantons of condemned love And sing them loiod even in the dead of night; (I.V.283-29I1-) There is also a disparity between outward form and intrinsic state — there is a quality of "what is, or should be, is not" — in the psychology of the various characters. The characters are not what they are supposed to be according to the accepted categories of

PAGE 107

103 faculty psychology. And as Draper points out, "To the Elizabethan, the humors, which were common knowledge in every household, must have 111 supplied a running commentary on the ploy's psychology and motives. Draper analyzes the characters in terms of what they should be according to faculty psychology. The two Icnights sho\ad "be choleric, hot and dry, hut ore in fact phlegmatic, cold, and wetj the steward should be phlegmatic and has in fact the pride and ambition of choler; the Dulce, as a duke, should be sanguine, hot and moist, but the melancholy of iinrequited love has made him cold and dry; and Olivia, v^ho should as a woman be passive and phlegmatic, is melancholy and sanguine. 2 In this context of things that are not v/hat they seem to be or should be the search for true identity, for the reality that underlies appearance, is basic. The search is undertolcen through the employment of various double visions: logical illogic, wise foolishness, and disguise. In the spirit of Ramus who concluded that dialectic proclaims all truth whether it be necessary or contingent— that is, it is "capable both of being and not being" --Shakespeare investigates dramatically both the being and non -being facets of truth. False appearances and false conceptions provide a background of paradox emphasized by the strange fits of logic appearing in the play. This use of logic backs up the play's exploration of "what really is." What is assumed to be true is so often not and what is assvmied to be false is often true. As Viola says, "I am not what I am." (ill. i. 153) Logic that appears to be illogic and illogic that appears to be logic provides a double source for much humor in Twelfth Kight and the double paradox is a medium for stating that w hat is supposedly true is sometimes draper, The Twelfth Might of Shakespeare's Audience , p. 22?. 2 Ibid., pp. 226-227.

PAGE 108

lOllfalse and vice versa, Feste appears to be a fod, but isn't; he appears to be illogical, but isn't. Feste asserts his superiority over Olivia by challenging her to a contest of wit, through which he employs a well recognized method of dialectic; as Sister Miriam Joseph notes, the clown eventually evokes from Olivia "throvigli question and provocation a statement by which to prove his allegation out of her ov/n mouth." Clo. ... Good madonna, give me leave to prove you a fool. Oli. Can you do it? Clo. Dexteriously, good madonna. Oli. Malte your proof. Clo. I must catechise you for it, madonna. Good my mouse of virtue, answer me. Oli. Vfell, sir, for wont of other idleness, I'll bide your proof. Clo, Good madonna, vdiy raoiArnest thou? Oli. Good fool, for my brother's death. Clo. I think his soul is in hell, madonna. Oli. I know his soul is in heaven, fool. Clo. The more fool, madonna, to raotirn for your brother's Boul being in heaven. Talce away the fool, gentlemen. (I,v. 63-78) Feste does not always reason logically. However, his illogic in^jlies a Icnowledge of the right use of logic. Fallacies are employed for humor; Teste's art implies a self-conscious awareness of what he is doing. He is similar to the musical satirist who comically imitates the style of— for exaraple--a beginning pianist, vrtiose poor performance is accurately transmitted only through the mastery of the imitator . The error of Feste is similarly calculated and employed for irony. Feste commits a material fallacy — a general term applying fallacies which have their root in the matter, that is, in the teiros of a Sister Miriam Joseph, p. 209 .

PAGE 109

i 105 syllogism which appears to he formally correct. The most important of the material fallacies is equivocation, use of the middle teiro in two different senses. This fallacy appears in the following conversation. Ces. Save thee, friend, and thy music I Dost thou live by the tabor? Feste, No sir, I, live by the church. Ces. Art thou a churchman? Feste, No such matter, sir. I do live by the church; for I do live at my house, and ray house doth stand by the chvirch. ( III. i. 1-7) Shalcespeare invests his wise fools with this capacity for sensing contingencies and ambiguities. Like Shakespeare himself, these wise fools are a source of a wisdom founded upon an ability to assume multiple perspectives. Like the Raraist logicians Feste and another manipulator in the play, Sir Toby, are capable of examining a conclusion both in an absolute sense and in a context of contingency. Petrus Ramus, of course, provides a basis for this kind of perspective. He refuted Aristotle's division of logic into two provinces— one of which ruled over absolutes while the other — rhetoric —applied to opinion, contingencies. Because some truth is necessary and some contingent, "'Aristotle wished to make two logics, one for science and the other for opinion , . , The art of knowing, that is to say, dialectic of logic, is one and the same doctrine in respect to perceiving all 2 things. . . .'" Because something is contingent, and therefore Ijbid., p. 191 Ramus, pp. 3-^; as cited by Howell, p. Ijlf.

PAGE 110

io6 I relative, does not preclude our knowledge of it. Ramus promotes the value of his logic "because it proclaims to us the truth of all argument and 8LS a consequence the falsehood, vrtiether the truth be necesary, as in science, or, as in opinion, contingent, that is to say, ^ capable both of being and not being." Within a specific context, with a distinctive perspective, things that are so are not always so. Shakespeare sometimes gets at raulti -faceted reality through the use of a proverb. Elizabethans, of course, delighted in proverbs, regarding them as vehicles of truth. In King Lear , for example --a play vitally concerned with relationships between appearance and reality — Gloucester says, "tis the time's plague when madmen lead the blind." (Vf.l.kS) Though this may be true generally in the specific context of King Lear, this truth is false; what is so is not always so. It is a blessing, no plague, that Edgar as mad Tom leads his father. The action of the play associates Gloucester's physical blindness with raisunder a banding, and it is primarily in this latter sense that he is led; Edgar is the "madman" but his is a sane madness. Beneath the appearance of madness lies a sanity and maturity that provides a proper basis for guiding the tuicomprehending Gloucester. Again, a form or medium for truth is used to express merely a partial truth and thus to force the reader or audience, because of the disparity, into a heightened awareness of the real situation. When Feste says, "Nothing that is so is so" (lV.i.9) he is jHaid ., p. 2, as cited by Howell, p. 15!+^.

PAGE 111

107 stating a truth, one that has special relevance within the context of this play, although the statement seems to be more of his "foolishness." There is indeed a sense in which what is, is not. What appears to be true is not always true. Viola is not a male page; Olivia, despite Malvolio's conviction, does not love him; and outward forms of logic may actually hide fallacies, as Malvolio's false conclusions demonstrate. Teste's statement that "nothing that is so is so" recalls Sir Toby's refutation of a similar analytical proposition: "To be up late is to be up late." (ll.iil.5) He opposes the gullible Sir Andrew with the conclusion that "not to be a-bed after midnight is to be up betimes." (lI.iii.1-2) Sir Toby achieves his humor by the fallacy of secundum quid , assuming that what is true in some respect is true absolutely. However, unlike Sir Andrevr, Sir Toby is aware of what he is doing and is familiar enough with the rules of logic to assume a partial and therefore false perspective for comic effect. Whether or not he is right depends on which of two days is xmder consideration. Viola, disguised as a man, like Feste, who is "disguised" as a fool, uses forms of reason that resemble their poses. She is at home with the syllogism and its parts and its capacity for stating a truth which the hearer does not perceive. As Caesario,"3he proves syllogistically that she is Olivia's servant." %ister 14Lrlara Joseph, p. 195 • ^Ibid., p. 177.

PAGE 112

106 Ces. Cesario Is your servant's name, fair princess. Oli, My servant, sir . . . You're servant to the Count Orsino, youth. Ces. And he is yours, and his must needs be yours. Your servant's servant is your servant, madam. ( III. i. 108-113) Malvolio's conclusions involve the falsely true. Tlmt is, outward forms of logic used by Malvolio hide fallacy. The fallacy is actually far from hidden, however; falseness is here as elsewhere in the play best seen, and most ironically, throuch what normally is a vehicle of truth. If Feste's reasoning is a wise foolishness, Malvolio's is a foolish wisdom. As Teste himself jxidges, quoting Quinipalus: "Better a vritty fool than a foolish wit." (l.v.i<-0) Malvolio reasons with faiilty logic because of his misuse of the enthymerae. In this case "usually only two of the three propositions of a syllogism are expressed, while one is merely implicit. Such an abridged syllogism is called an enthymerae. Malvolio, reading the letter which Maria has written in Olivia's hand in order to gull him, quotes a proposition, supplies a minor premise, and infers the hoped-for conclusion."^ Mai, "I may command where I adore." ^/hy, she may command me. I serve her. She is my. lady. Why, this is evident to any formal capacity, ... (Il.v,126-128) Smugly priding himself on his ability to reason Byllogistically, Malvolio condvides that "I am the one she adores." Thereby he makes his mistake. "In that form of enthymerae in which one of the premises is omitted there •'•Ibid,, p, 177.

PAGE 113

109 is a strong tendency to accept the conclusion without scrutinizing the missing premise on which the argument rests." Malvolio's "madness" is thus seen not only through his delusions but through his misuse of formal logic. Malvolio is guilty, too, of the fallacy of composition, assuming "that what is applicable to individual members of a group is applicable to the group. This fallacy seems to underline Malvolio's attitude in wanting to hind his Puritanical ideas on all."^ Sir Toby objects with the famous, "Dost thou thinlc, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?" (Il.iii.l23) Manipulations of logic provide one of several means of forcing the audience's attention to come to bear on the "what is, is not" quality suggested by disguise in Tw elfth Night, and of exposing the madness of those who cannot perceive what is really so. Another device for emphasizing this madness has a cohesive effect similar to that of the incremental repetition characteristic of folk songs and much medieval literature , The word "mad" repeatedly used in the play, draws together scenes that seem to be casually related but \^ich actually present diverse expressions of the madness that carries the play along, Fbr example, scenes involving incidents having no causal relationship are brought together vinder the common denominator of madness; the scene involving Feste, dressed as a curate, and the imprisoned Malvolio •4bld., p. 178. 2xbid., p. 193.

PAGE 114

uo (Act IV, scene ii) is followed "by a song and then a new scene in iriiich Sebastian agrees to marry the deluded Olivia. Feote finishes his talk with Malvolio by saying, "Nay, I'll ne'er believe a madman (Malvolio) till I see his brains." (ii. 125-126) "Mad" appears immediately after in Feste*s song. Sebastian then opens a new scene, which takes place in Olivia's garden, with the protestation that Oliviafe attention towards him has been real: he is enwrapped with wonder, but not madness. (iV.lii.U) •kjompare also the use of "content" in a similar play, As You Like It . As You Like It sets in contrast the world of the court— supposedly civilized, just, and generally productive of happiness— and the life of Arden— supposedly uncivilized and subjected to the discomforts of hard labor and wintry winds. Actually, the forest of Arden is the setting for a "life more sweet . , . more free" for the Duke; it is the "better world". mentioned at the beginning of the play. Shakespeare uses several means of keeping one attentive to the comparison between the two settings, and the modes of life offered by the court world and Arden. There is much vise of the word "content" to give another dimension to the comparison between the court world and the Arden world. Just as Arden represents contentment and characters such as Corln and Audrey represent pastoral contentment, so do the court and such characters as Jacques represent discontent. The play abounds in the word "content," and the variety of uses and contexts in which it appears amplifies. the diversified ways in which the Arden life is a good one, a contented one— that is, they give definition to this general quality of contentment. Celia and Rosalind leave for Arden in content: Arden is a refuge and place of freedom for them. Touchstone says upon entering Arden that this is not so good a place as the court, "but travellers must be content." (Il.iv.l8): That is, he must be resigned, through adjustment; and throughout the rest of the play. Touchstone adjvists by making a compromise between the courtly and the real. Corln says that he is "content": his simple but sensible shepherd life is one of content and in this way he is the fulcrum for the extremes of pastoral life represented in As You Like It . Touchstone's idea of content Is also, appropriately, related to the physical. He asks Audrey if his simple shape "contents" her. (III. ill. 5) Thus content means different things to these characters. Finally, Rosalind, in effecting the desires of all the lovers, speaks to each, lover in terms of helping, satisfying, and finally, of contenting him the next day, \^en they all will be united in marriage.

PAGE 115

in Another way in which Twelfth Night approaches the "to be and not to be" paradox, the slimiltaneous falsity and truth announced by disgtiise in the play, is by direct reference to perspective painting, Feste has said, "Nothing that is so is so," and Sir Toby has concluded that being up late does not always mean being up late. That is, beneath a single appearance two realities may lie; this is also the observation of the Duke, when confronted by both Sebastian and Caesario simultaneously. In this case of the mistaken twins, what seemed to be a single reality is discovered to be two. Just as conversely disguise allows a person to seem to be two, thoiigh he actually be one. The Duke alludes directly to the vogue of perspective painting in explaining the soiarce of confusion over the mistaken twins: Dxilte: One face, one voice, one habit, and two persons, A natural perspective that is and is not', (V,i,223-22l^) "Perspective" here is used with one of the rlenotations given the term in the sixteenth centviry. The reference is to a type of painting which should be looked at from a particular, off-center point of view. Toilet quotes from Humane Industry, I66I, to explain the particular trick in perspective painting to which Orsino is probably alluding. It is a pretty art that in a pleated paper or table furrowed or indented, men make one picture represent several faces— that being viewed from one place or standing, did shew the head of a Spaniard, or from another, the head of an ass. ... A picture of a chancellor of Frevnce presented to the common beholder a multltixde of little faces, but If one did look on it through a perspective, there appeared only the single pourtralcture

PAGE 116

112 of the chancellor himself. Shakespeare's England explains the "perspective paintings" through an example: Specimens of these distorted figures, \rtiich can only be seen aright by looking through a hole in a slanting direction, appear in the portrait of Edward VI at the National Portrait Gallery, and in the painting of "The Ambassadors" by Holbein at the National Gallery, \riiere there is a perspective presentation of a human skull. 2 Varied points of observation, or perspectives give the painting its raulti-raeanlng. Regarded directly, only confusion is perceived, but regarded obliquely, a person's picture is seen. As in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night J the true may not be discernible if sought directly; it may have to be approached through the false — through a "wrong" perspective such as disguise, wise fools, and logical illogic provide. Shakespeare offers a statement of this "wrongV perspective in Richard n. Like perspectives, which rightly gazed upon Show nothing but confusion; ey'd awry Distinguish form. (lI.ii.19-21) The character in Twelfth Night whose appearance belies and yet asserts his true nature in a degree closest to Viola is Feste. What in her is physical disguise corresponds to his role as a fool. He is no more foolish than she is male, yet the folly has vises as truly as do •'•Horace Howard Furness (ed.), A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare , XIII: Twelfe Night, Or, What You Will (Riilad&lphia; J. B. Lippincott Co., Ibb?}, 76. o Shakespeare's England (Oxford: Clarendon Press), II, 10.

PAGE 117

113 men's garments, and its function is similar. The device of the jester's role, whereby vinder the pretext of foolishness a man may speak the truth with great freedom and boldness is similar to disguise when disgviise liberates a character from his original role in order to act as a commentator upon a situation. Robert Go3jdsraith's stiidy of Wise Fools in Shakespeare provides a basis for connecting the wise fool with the more general tradition of physical disguises that reveal. Examining the origin of his stock character, the author relates the fool of tradition with the comic Vice of the Tudor morality play and with the later stage fool, Feste himself in Twelfth ICLght alludes to his archetypes. I'll be with you acain, In a trice. Like to the old Vice, Your need to sustain. (lV.i.132-135) The Vice seems to owe his nature to qualities suggested by the Seven Deadly Sins of the homilies. In the older plays, according to Goldsmith, "he came on the stage or pageant in the Devil's retinue, but at some point in his stage career he became the antagonist of the Devil 2 and belabored him with his wooden lath," In other words, though associated first with the Devil, Vice eventually becomes a character who is only superficially evil, aligning himself in truth against the Devil and his retinue. This suggestion of disparity between what he seems to ^Robert Hlllis Goldsmith, Wise Fools In Shakespeare (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1955 )• ^Ibld ., p. 17.

PAGE 118

111^ "be and actually is is re -emphasized and it is expressed distinctly throxjgh physical disguise in a later, secular play. Skelton's Magnificence has two fools, Fancy and Folly; Fancy is a real fool and Folly, a counterfeit fool, only feigning foolishness and in reality embodying some wisdom. The wise fool becomes firmly established dramatically by the time of John Bedford's aUegorical interlude Wyt and Science (c. 1530). Wyt appears in the garb of Ignorance and is talcen for a fool. Here, then, the wisdom of the fool and the revealing disguise join forces. Compaxe also the Ironic use of folly in Erasmus' Encomium Morlae , 1512, .in which the mouthpiece of wisdom is called folly. Biblical precept no doubt vinderlies this tradition of reversing the sources of knowledge, for "hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" and conversely, "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise." It is noteworthy, says Goldsmith, that the wise fool has scant occurrence outside of Shakespeare, cropping up twice in Marston — Passarello in QJhe Malcontent and Dondolo in The Fawne ; once in Middle ton— Plckadlll in No Wit, No Help Like a Woman's ; and once in Samuel Rowley —V/ill Summers in When You See Me, You Kno\i Vie . In Shakespeare, however, the wise fool is a character repeatedly foxmd. That is understandable, considering Shakespeare's interest in paradox and life-like complexity along with his interest in oblique approaches to truth. It is consistent with his use of Indirect media for the exposition of llbid., p. 32.

PAGE 119

115 character and theme. The physically disguised character and the mentally disguised wise man— "both of which are agents of revelationappear cooperatively in two of Shakespeare's mature works, not only in Twelfth Night but also in King Lear which will he discussed in the next chapter. In Twelfth Night the disguised natiure of Viola, womanly and affectionate, and the disguised wisdom of the fool act as commentaries upon the misconceptions basic to the action. The main misconceptions of the play have to do with unreasonableness aM falseness of the Duke's and Olivia's love. Each maintains an adamant, though idealistic attitude towards love. Abundantly verbal, but ill-directed and eventually inconstant, their love is at variance with that of Viola-steadfast though inarticulate. Beneath her concealment lies a feeling more real than that of Olivia and the Duke, despite their declarations. True affection is that which through most of the play lies concealed, expressing itself only through the indirection which disguise or occasional, brief asides permit. Disguise then acts as a commentary. How else is the folly of Olivia expressed? Through the fool. Because of Olivia's status as a rich countess, none of her household could criticize her directly, but under a cloak of foolishness the wise fool — the clown, Feste— proclaims her a fool, thus reversing their roles. First Olivia is attacked generally, as a fool. Oli. Take the fool away. Clo. Do you not hear, fellows? Take away the lady. (I.v.l^2-l^l^)

PAGE 120

116 ''"A Several lines later the charge is more specific and in keeping with Olivia's delusions about the nature and expression of love. Her brother's death is the topic of discussion. Clo, Good madonna, why mournest thou? Oil. Good fool, for ray brother's death. Clo, I think his soul is in hell, madonna. Oli, I know his soul is in heaven, fool. Clo. The more fool, madonna, to moiorn for your brother's soul being in heaven. Take away the fool, gentlemen, (l.v.72-78) The fool, as Goldsmith notes, has little need for the stage whisper or comic aside. Like Viola in disguise or Hamlet in his supposed madness, the fool can reveal himself dramatically and ironically, without relying on conventional devices of the aside or soliloquy which retard the movement of the play and exist for single purposes. Most of the characters of Tweli>th Night are in some way deluded — "mad" is the expression recurrently given to their quality of misconception. Viola and Feste are obvious exceptions to this assemblage of madmen. Perhaps Sir Toby would be another exception, if he were not constantly in some stage of drunkenness. And what does Feste, the wise man, say of a drunken man? He is "like a drown'd man, a fool, and a madman." (l,v,139) This statement encompasses all of the deluded characters in the play. The Duke is a "drown'd man": he has repeatedly e:cpressed the excessive capacity of his love as being that of the sea, so he is allied with the "drown'd," He compares his love with that of a woman who has less retention of affection: Tbld,, p. 20.

PAGE 121

117 Their love may be called appetite, No motion of the liver, but the palate. That suffer surfeit, cloyment, and revolt; But mine is all as hungry as the sea. And can digest as much. (Il.v.l00-10»t) However, he seems more soused than satisfied. And who is the fool in Teste's analogy? Olivia, obviously. Moments before, the fool had directed the retinue of Lady Olivia to "take away the fool." Madmen, too, are like the drunken man, the drown'd man, and the fool. Madmen, or those accused of being mad, are plentiful. Malvolio asks Sir Toby, Maria and the other revellers if they are not mad, to be up so late. (ll,iii.93) Maria, on the other hand, reports to Olivia that Malvolio is "tainted in's wits." (Ill.iv.i3) And Olivia, after confronting him, condvides herself that "this is very midsummer madness." (III.iv.6l} Feste continues to expose madness and foolishness as the action progresses and the delusions accelerate. Antonio, disconcerted by the vmfaithfulness of Sebastian in failing to return his purse, has confused Viola for Sebastian and is thought to be mad by officers who arrest him. Sebastian, mistaken for Viola by both Feste and Sir Andrew, asks "Are all the people mad?" (lV.i.29) although a few lines later, because of his growing confusion he entertains the alternative, "Or I am mad." (lV.i.6^) Feste accuses Antonio of madness and the Duke accuses Antonio of the same. And finally, the last accusation is made by Olivia to Feste, Oli. How now, art thou mad? Clo. No, madam, I do but read madness. (V.i.301-302)

PAGE 122

118 And this is indeed his role. He is aware "that . . . foolery does walk about the orh, like the sun; it shines everywhere, ..." (III.ii.i^3) The resemblance of Feste the wise fool to the disguised Viola is heightened in two ways. Viola wisely discerns the wisdom of the fool and the fool assumes the disguise of a priest to fool Malvolio, Viola, after bantering with Feste, reveals her own acute perception and wisdom as she says: This fellow is wise enough to play the fool, And to do that well craves a kind of wit. He must observe their mood on whom he jests, The quality of persons and the time. And, like the haggard, check at every feather That comes before his eye. This is a practice As full of labour as a wise man's art; For folly that he wisely shows is fit. But wise men, folly-fall 'n, quite taint their wit. (lII.i.67-75) In the tradition of the morality plays, specific and generalized Vices, as they resorted not only to changes in name but also to changes in appearance in order to signify their deceiving natures, took upon themselves the garb of the friax. Feste, too, puts on the gown, dissembling as Sir Topas the curate, and uses the situation for a characteristic display of his wisdom. Well, I'll put it on, and I will dissemble myself in't; and I would I were the first that ever dissembled in such a gown. (lV.ii.5-7) Feste, like the earliest examples of morality disguises—and like Viola in her role as a page— exposes error in the assumed disguise.

PAGE 123

119 Starting with the 'basic Plautine comedy-of -errors plot, Shakespeare has utilized his source for full dramatic value in Twelfth Night . Despite the demands that Shakespeare imposes on disguise and misidentity in general, the play is nevertheless dependent for some of its comic spirit upon the more traditional comic effects of misidentity. With effective compression, he overlaps the traditionally separate conventions of misidentity throvigh disguise and misidentity because of identical twins: Viola is both a twin and a character in disgtiise. However, Twelfth Night is at least partly a commentary on love and a drama of character; it is not jjurely a comedy of errors, and the complications potential in the twin situation are subordinated to the play's more predominant interests. Shakespeare changes his sources, rendering Sebastian inconspicuous, causing him to come into the plot late; he imobtrusively complicates and resolves the situation initiated through the element of disguise. Thus one aspect of misidentity (the twin situation) leads to the exposure of another aspect of misidentity (disguise) and leads to the play's resolution, Sebastian is not in the play merely to create a comic situation. The dueling situation of Viola versxis Sir Andrew and the one in which Sebastian replaces Caesario (Viola) and slightly wounds Sir Andrew are the only examples of disguise used in the original Roman comedy style, for low comedy. However, they too undergird characterization and theme. Let us examine the duels more closely. The encounter between Viola and Sir Andrew scarcely deserves the name of duel. The effete and timorous Sir Andrew is no more capable of bloodshed than is

PAGE 124

120 I his female opponent. In this scene, the real nature of Viola is set off in contrast to the demands of the pose she is assuming through her male disguise. Her speech reveals the tension hetween her pose and her nature, hut more effectively, her gestures, improvised in an actual performance of the play, portray her lack of skill and her faintness of heart. Viola's real nature is also highlighted through a contrast with the performance of her masculine counterpart — her hrother Sebastian—as he eagerly taltec on his reluctant challenger. Sir Andrew, and quickly subdues him. The disparity between the dueling Viola and the dueling Sebastian helps to enunciate the femininity of the heroine. It is well that as the play advances and the action nears resolution we are put in mind of the actual feminine nature of Viola, It is important to establish her as a woman through her disguise, for it is Viola, the woman, who finally marries the Duke, Love, as we hove seen, is at the center of the play's interests. But it is not the love of an Olivia for a dead brother (which leans toward the incestuous), nor Olivia's attraction to the disguised Viola, nor the love of the Duke for Olivia (nourished more by artificial forms than by the one who ie loved) that the action of the play approves, Viola, like Rosalind, is set amongst those whose concepts of romance or whose moods of love depart from a standard of normality which she maintains and represents in the play. Of all the plays. Twelfth Night exhibits the broadest and the deepest range of uses of disguise, which Shakespeare has developed as

PAGE 125

I 121 modifications and extensions of an early and simple comic device. In the earlier plays, which we have examined, disguise may have reinforced theme by jvuctaposing false appearance and false attitiides, but with less comprehension and complexity. In Love's Lahovir's Lost, on the one hand, disguise relates to the theme of misunderstanding the scholarly quest, but merely in Act V. In The Two Gentl ?'me n of Verona , on the other hand, the falsity which disguise helps to expose is that of idealistic, too-easily -determined "righ-tf' attitudes and modes of behavior. One leaves the play knowing what is wrong — infidelity to those one loves— whereas in Twelfth Might the polarities are not as clear; the black and vfhite shade into life-like degrees of grey. In Twelfth Kight the interplay between mistaken appearance and k mistaken conception is thorough -going. Shakespeare brings these two interests together with regard to over-all plot construction. The complication initiating the action of the drama springs from both the disguise of Viola and the delusions of the Duke and Olivia concerning love. Disguise, traditionally an external or mechanical cause for dramatic action, joins psychological, internal causes from the very beginning of the play. Complications growing out of the physical and the mental misidentities accelerate until they are resolved through a T single incident — the revelation of who Viola actually is. All the accumulating tensions of the play focus on this scene and find resolution as a resvilt of Viola's disclosure. The Duke recognizes Viola as the true object of his affection and Olivia is restored to her actual husband, Sebastian. Oi^ly the delusions of Milvollo are incapable of

PAGE 126

122 resolution, thereby reiterating the serious implications of the pervasive tendency of all the characters to confuse appearance and reality, but without damaging the comic spirit of this comedy of errors. Error, "T however, is not so easily and completely righted; there is for Malvolio no miraculous herb of Oberon whose liquor hath this virtuous property To take from thence all error with his might. Error is seen to be a coin with two faces, comedy and tragedy, ^vhlch are not mutually exclusive. King Lear , as we shall see in the next chapter, unremittingly turns toward us the tragic face of misconception.

PAGE 127

CHAEPER V DISGUISE IN A IRASEDY OF ERRORS "Most true it is that I have look'd on truth Iy^skance and strangely. . . ." (Sonnet 110 ) Disguise, too often relegated by critics to the interests of comedy in Elizabethan drama, appears in a mature Shakespearean tragedy. King Lear . In this play disguise is not only a means of revealing the character of a person assuming a false pose, but it is also a means of elucidating and promoting the characterization of Lear himself, Lear, who is constantly kept in focus, is s\irrounded by characters who, besides maintaining their own identity, are projections of some aspect • of the king; thereby they vividly convey both the disunity of his personality and his characteristic tendency to see himself in external objects. Stated generally, this technique of characterization — associated so often with Henry James in narrative fiction — is one in which the definition of a character is established through his context. The true nature of a character or situation is explored through a complex of perspectives. In King Lear things apparently disparate and even irreconcilable are throughout the play brought into an increasingly 1^ close jvixbaposition and finally are made to converge as part of a single actuality. To be specific, Lear's identity — what he actually is — is definable only with reference to objects and characters which, in a literal sense, he is not. Similarly, the wisdom he finally 123

PAGE 128

12i^ achieves is expressible "because he comes to regard himself as foolish. And his clearest insights are transmitted through what superficially appear to he mad hahblings. As a study of ways of looking at things, King Lear will be found to express Shakespeare's characteristic mature employment of the indirect perspective. Not all of these characters who enlarge the statement of Lear assume a physical disguise. Both Edgar and Kent appear in disguise, and the Pool — of a type exemplified by Feste and functioning along with Viola as a revealing commentary on character in Twelfth Night — is also "disguised" in the sense that his wise commentary is veiled beneath the superficial appearance of a fool. The Fool fits into a general category of characters who may be regarded as disguised insofar as the appearance they present to others in the play disguises what they principally are. In the present study the Fool will be regarded henceforth as simply disguised. These disguised characters may be considered agents of a mode of dramatizing similar to expressionism, reflecting as they do the experience of Lear. As such they combine with aspects of setting— the storm principally, which is frequently interpreted as an objectification of /vdiat is happening within Iiear himself. The agony of Lear's position is in part seen externally, through the inter -relationships of Lear with the storm, Kent, the Fool, ad Edgar as Mad Tom. What might be labelled a split personality convention— that technique of representing a character and his disunity by projecting aspects of him Into the outside characters — was a convention established early

PAGE 129

125 and widely in the Morality play, with its conflict of good and evil, in vaxious forms, which centers in the main character. -The Morality play offers conspicuous examples of what I have called a split personality convention, or, generally, an aspect of expressionism in King Lear * Vario\is character traits are in the Moralities isolated and objectified through allegory. Tlie character of "manlcind" is a composite of qualities found in the characters surrounding him. Less extended in scope, this sort of symholism continues into the interludes. In The Interlude of the Virtuous and Godly Queen Hester some use is made of the allegorical representation of character. The wickedness of Aman is dramatically revealed in his interaction with Pride, Ambition, and Adulation. Perhaps this technique of representing characters who are to some degree disintegrated is best seen because most consciously used in modern examples, in the post-Freudian drama. Modern dramas— both early twentieth century plays and later, more analytically psychological studies— rely again on this convention that Shakespeare and his predecessors had used. The technique can be defined vividly in our minds if we look at O'Neill, because of the obvious symbolism of his artifices. The use of the projected character in Days Without End approximates that of the H/llliam Boy Mackenzie, The Engp-ish Moralities from the Point of View of Allegory (Boston and London: Glnn and Contpany, I9I'*), p. 2t|-2.

PAGE 130

126 Morality play tradition the most closely. Here, John Loving's dual self is represented dramatically by the delegation of his part to two actors who appear concurrently on the stage. John is the persisting aspect of the personality, and it is John that the other characters see and converse with. Loving, his other self — a type of Bad Angel, characterized in this play as rational and cynical — remains uiiseen to the others. When John regains the religious faith of his chilclhood, his personality is vdiole and the malevolent Loving expires. Seeking escape from what he has called the "banality of surfaces," O'Heill experimented in The lihiperor Jones with expressionistic uses of setting (in the broad sense of the word), employing drum beat, "little formless fears" and so forth to objectify and vitalize conflicts waging within Jones himself. Reflecting back upon several completed plays, O'Neill in his Wilderness edition, states that The Great God Brown , an extensive dramatic exploration of aspects of personality, attempts to foreshadow the mystical patterns created by the duality of human character and the search for what lies hidden behind and beyond words and actions of men and women. "More by the use of overtones than by explicit speech, I sovight to convey the dramatic conflicts in their lives and within the souls of the character s,"-'Shakespeare' 8 dramatic exploration of character in King Lear bespeaks a similar Interest. These expressionistic devices employ both outside characters and aspects of setting as means of searching "the duality of hvman character As cited in Eabnond M. Gagey, Revolution in American Drama (New York: Columbia University Press, 19*^7)7^^557"

PAGE 131

127 1 and . . . what lies hiddenl' It is a technique which in the hands of such dramatists as O'Neill and Shakespeare is beautifully adapted to exposing this duality or complexity and its hidden nature, because the technique itself constitutes dramatic testimony to the existence of the mystery. Another means of objectifying character, one that is similar to Shakespeare's use of the disguise, is O'Neill's use of the mask. The Great God Brown makes extensive use of masks to represent character levels and changes, just as Rosalind's disguise expands the range of her personality, Dion Anthony represents a combination of the lifegiving Dionysus — or the sensual--and the life-denyinc, masochistic spirit of St. Anthony — or the spiritual--by the gay, scoffing mask which hides his spiritual, underlying ejcpression. It is the maskpersonality of Dion that his wife Margaret loves, not knowing the sensitive man beneath. She wants an ambitious and successful, however superficial, husband. She becomes completely happy when the worldly successful William Brown acquires the mask of Dion, who has died; Brown poses in the mask of Dion and is Joyfully accepted by Margaret. And Brown seeks himself , his own identity, through the identity of Dion. An actual performance of The Great God Brown, of course, exhibits the full extent to which symbolic disguise can be used in this play. In a recent New York production, for example, a moment of intense disjunction in Dion's personality vas dramatized in his removing his mask and speaking to it as though it were separate from him* Margaret's confusion and tension were conveyed directly by action, by a

PAGE 132

128 momentary gesture towards removing her mask, vrtien in Brown's office she sought work for Dion. A momentary impulse to "be sincere and direct was dramatized thereby. In King Lear and in The Great God Brown the artifice of disgvdse is easily accepted within its poetic, stylized context. In The Great God Brown artificial, paralleling set scenes at the beginning, combine with repeated stylized movements, stark staging, spot-lighting that poetically isolates characters and incidents, and discordant music to enunciate the reality of the hidden psychological and spiritual situation. In King Lear there is a myth -like quality to the play that makes possible a non-realistic treatment, involving, among other things, the use of disguise, an outward emblem. The main action of King Lear prepares Lear for his reconciliation with Cordelia at the end, and the natxire of his transformation is the primary concern of the body of the play. Shakespeare uses his non -realistic means to express the various qualities of Lear and stages of his transformation. Shakespeare's use of disguise in King Lear is consonant with his increasing concentration upon character and upon expressionistic methods of dramatizing the protagonist, and it is peculiarly appropriate as a mode of statement in this play because Lear ie a notably impulsive and \mreflective man. In King Lear various characters, in actual physical disguise or some modification of a disguise, contribute qualities that reveal Lear. Here conventional media such as the soliloquy would be highly inappropriate for exposition of character. The dramatist who wrote Lear has, in effect, asked himself whether the character he has

PAGE 133

129 created wouM be inclined to soliloquize and answered no. Leax would not be inclined to soliloquize, Lear seeras vinable to look into matters closely. His lack of perceptiveness is suggested when one of his knights detects a lack of respect and affection to Lear; Lear himself had scarcely noticed. (l.iv,60-76) Lear's dislike of reflection— or his inability to piursue a thought inferentially--is indicated in his next speech; putting off thovight, Lear promises, "I willQook further into't. But, . . ." (I. iv. 76-77) And thus he procrastinates. His ineptitude for imaginative thought is indicated again in his ineffectual diatribe against Goneril and Regan: He threatens to do such things,— What they axe, yet I know not; but they shall be The terrors of the earth, ( 11, iv. 283-285) Soliloquies from the mouth of an introspective, deliberative Hamlet are more intrinsically suitable than they would be for the impulsive and unreflective Lear, For Lear the material of soliloquy has been translated into dramatic situation. For example, soliloquy has been converted into •'"Indirect means of characterization — often through external objects or players— are relied upon extensively in the last tragedies whose protagonists are primarily active. Indirectly the fears of Macbeth are objectified into terms of concrete apparitions, daggers and such, even as, in a modern expressionistio play, O'Neill's The Emperor Jones , Jones is characterized, in part, through the "little, formless fears'' he encounters. Coriolanus and Anthony are two other Shakespearean tragic heroes who are more prone to act than to verbalize and meditate. The destructively honest pride of Coriolanus, it heis been observed, is dramatically highlighted through the use of indirect media: disgtilse, Anthony, on the other hand, torn against Immense foils to his own nature: the sensuous world of Egypt with its Cleopatra and the world of duty and glory— Rome with its Caesar,

PAGE 134

130 dialogue when Leeix converses with characters whom the action of the play and Lear himself tell us are to be identified with the king. These characters, these projected aspects of Lear, not only reveal the qualities of Lear that they reflect directly, but because of the fact that Lear sees a relationship between these characters and himself we perceive more clearly Lear's tendency to regard himself in terms of exterior objects--relying as he formerly did upon merely "the name," "th' addition" of a king. The observable einalogies between Lear and several of his associates become clear contributors to our understanding of the old king if we regard Kent, the Fool, and mad Tom not only as characters with whom he has to deal but also as aspects of Lear himself projected into disguised forms of himself. The disguise of Kent helps to characterize both Kent and Lear and to make possible a statement of the difference between them-a difference which is apparent because they are similar. For one thing, Kent's loyalty to his king is manifest and persistently restated throughout the play because of his assumption of his particular disguise, the means whereby he debases himself in order to be of service to Lear. This he does despite the unjust treatment Lear has accorded him. Thus a strong quality of Kent's character, his loyalty, is revealed. Not only is Kent's character emphasized but his loyalty keeps alive throughout this play our sharp awareness of the tragically consequential disloyalties and disrespectful actions which are its bitter causes of tragedy.

PAGE 135

131 Kent, though he is himself (albeit in disguise) at the same time reflects the king and, at times, acts as a projection of the person of the king; this is especially evident when he is mistreated, as Lear*s messenger, by Regan, who has him put in the stocks. Kent is inextricably identified with Lear when he acts as his messenger. Kent himself warns Regan against her rash treatment of him: You shall do small respects, show too bold malice Against the grace and person of my master, Stocking his messenger. (lI.ii.7-9) And, more pointedly, several speeches further, Gloucester intercedes on Kent's behalf: The King must take it ill That he, so slightly valued in his messenger. Should have him thus restrain'd. (Il.ii.l52-15lf) On other occasions Shakespeare guides us into conjoining the two characters. For example, when first he sought service vinder Lear, the disguised Kent aligned himself with his master, commenting that be was "as poor as the King" (l,iv,20-2l), arid later, out in the storm, he answers Lear's "Wilt break my heart?" with "I had rather break mine own." (ill. iv. 3-4) Upon another occasion, he identifies himself with Lear against Oswald, sharing the will of his master. (X.iv) The figure of Kent as a projection of the king \rtiom he serves is an easily acceptable dramatic device because of the living convention that a king's messenger is to be treated with deference symbolic of the deference accorded the king. Shakespeare builds thus upon a sure and comfortable base.

PAGE 136

132 Shakespeare also emphasizes differences betv;een Kent and Lear. Kent is wiser than Lear, He is similar to the Fool and to Edgar as mad Tom because of his discernment and wisdom, which so obviously contrast ^ with the folly of Lear, Like these other disguised revealers of truth, Kent displays wisdom which is influential, no doubt, though operating subtly and accumulatively, in the reconstruction of Lear's personality, Kent, with a capacity for loyalty to the king, is yet capable of asserting a truth the king does not and will not see. Lear, strong in self-will and frustrated when defied by recalcitrant circumstance throughout the first parts of the play, commands heaven to his own purpose or appropriates heaven's prerogative as his own divine sanction. "By Jupiter," "By Apollo" and such oaths are his frequent ext ^ pressions. His imperative mode and his oaths, however, are early in the play mocked by Kent, who tells Lear "thou swear' st thy gods in vain," (l,i.l63) Later, Kent, bound in the stocks, again mocks the unyielding king, who can neither comprehend nor accept the outrage he has just suffered in the person of Kent, "By Jupiter, I swear, no," he protests. To this Kent adds, "By Juno, I swear, ay," (II. iv, 21-22) Kent is as violent in speech and action as the king. The difference is that whereas the king will not accept a fact, Kent will. This simi^ larity with a' difference was evident early in the play: Lear was impetuous in renouncing Cordelia, and Kent showed an equal lack of restraint as he immediately remonstrated, "Good my liege—" (l,i,123) and was quickly silenced by Leax, The characters are allied through the

PAGE 137

133 common trait of impetuosity. The fact that clearly emerges from such a notable similarity, however, is that Leax's Judgment was wrong, Kent's was right. That the avowed affection of Goneril and Regeua was false and that Cordelia was indeed devoted could not be revealed to Lear directly by the discerning Kent. Lear would not tolerate a direct criticism. In disguise, however, Kent served as an instrument whereby Lear could be confronted with the truth and thus eventually could approximate the wisdom of Kent himself. Through Regan's mistreatment of Lear's servant, Kent in disguise, Lear was vividly confronted with the injustice done to Lear himself. And near the play's conclusion, when Lear has been made ready to perceive the true affection of Cordelia, Kent is instrumental in bringing him to her, literally carrying the old king to his daughter and symbolically bringing him to a true relationship. Regan, earlier in the play, had said by way of encouraging Lear to seek Goneril' s aid. You should be led By some discretion that discerns your state Better than yourself. (lI.iv.151-152) Kent is one such "discretion." The folly of the King and his deed are highlighted also by the Pool, who under a guise of irrelevance and foolishness is a spokesman for truth and for the self -accusation Lear tries to suppress. The Fool, like Kent and mad Tom, is presented in the play in an identification with Lear himself despite vast differences. In the scene introducing

PAGE 138

13U the Fool into the action, one of his first remarks establishes the identity and yet minimizes the distinction as he sings to Lear that they are both fools, "me sweet, you bitter . . . The one in motley here, the other found out there." And when Lear in his growing confusion begins to seek self -Icnowledge, he asks, "Who is it that can tell me who I am?" ( I, iv. 250-251) The Fool replies, "Lear's shadow," The Fool is in part a projection of Lear himself, since he reflects insights of the neglected common sense that Lear must face in his growth towards a more realistic and broader understanding of himself and his relationships with authority. The Fool tells Lear that he is a fool. The conflict waged within Lear between his partial awareness of his folly and indiscretion and his unwillingness fully to accept this realization is dramatized by means of the Fool. It is a commonplace of modern psychology--Freudian, particularly—that a man tends to externalize unpleasant pressures from within. Thus, throtigh "projection" the recognition that "ray conscience is bothering me" becomes instead, "He is bothering me." This fact of projection, as it applies to Lear, and the content of the message of fact is dramatized by means of the Fool. The fool leads Lear towards a more discerning approach to what is Ijnmediately apparent but in some way untrue, Lear must achieve the scepticism of the Fool before he is ready for a reconciliation with Cordelia. At the beginning of the play Lear is unable to see beyond the silence of Cordelia's answer to Lear; when he asked her what she could say to express her affection for her father, she replied "Nothing, my lord." Lear, of course, disinherits her, blind as he is to the

PAGE 139

135 linexpressed depth of her feeling. Lear also is unable to perceive the consequences of the dividing of his kingdom. In the first scene in which Lear and the Fool appear together the Fool attempts to confront Lear with his hasty and superficial way of looking at things. The scene begins with the Fool's song of veiled reproach of Lear's folly in svirrendering his authority. Characteristically, Lear assumes that, "This is nothing. Fool." Lear believes that even though he has divided his kingdom, he retains his authority; he is still essentially a king, still at least something significant, finding his status in "the name," "th' addition" of a king. The Fool, however, states Lear's "nothiiagness" : "thou hast pared thy wit o' both sides and left nothing i'th'midd.le," Picking up "nothing" in his very next speech, the Fool informs his companion, "I am better than thou art now; I am a Fool, thou art nothing," (l,iv.21i|-) It is only after bitter eoqierlences that shock him into self -awareness that Lear can clearly perceive, "They told me I was everything; 'tis a lie." (Iv.vi.l06) Lear, vrith his hunger for the outward tokens of affection and authority, benefits too from the reflection of himself which he sees in mad Tom o'Bedlam, \iho is reduced almost to nakedness. Tom, himself a character in disguise, is seen to be an aspect of Lear, Confronting him, Lear speculates: "Is man no more than this?" and concludes in the same speech, "Thou art the thing itself; vmaccoramodated man is no more but such a poor, bare, forked animal as thou art." (lll.iv.lO?, 110-lll|) Lear sees in Tom "unaccommodated man" and he must eventually recognize

PAGE 140

136 in himself this essential, unadorned nature before his transformation is complete. That is, he had previously demanded special treatment and the superfluities of life because he was king, but he comes to realize the folly of centering so much attention in himself, in what is basically nothing more than a man. The identification of lear with Kent, mad Tom, and the Fool becomes more complete as Lear achieves a clearer insight into himself and his situation. Lear, as we have seen, is identified in several ways with Kent, though Kent's judgment was clearly superior to Lear's. And Lear is more completely like Kent as he achieves wisdom which approximates that of Kent. Also, Lear is increasingly identified with mad Tom and the Fool as he gains knowledge of himself and his situation. His identification with mad Tom is indicated in his act of tearing off his own clothes; he sees himself in mad Tom and seeks to resemble him fully. And throughout the last part of the play Lear is more and more identified with the Fool. We have found the Fool to be a projection of Lear; this projection dramatizes the king's disunified personality-the fact that he will not acknowledge his own indiscretion. After Lear has identified himself with mad Tom, in the storm scene, both mad Tom and the Fool abandon their roles as projections of Leax's character and cease to be the companions of Lear, being no longer needed in their function as symbols of Lear's inner chaos. As Lear's personality axihieves a greater degree of integration, his projected

PAGE 141

137 aspects disappear. Mad Tom changes to the disgvilse of a peasant whereby he hecoraes a means of guiding Gloucester both physicsdly and mentally, while the Fool "goes to bed at noon," (ll.vi.92) The Fool's final statement, "And I'll go to bed at noon," has usually been Interpreted only in the light of the Fool's tender-heartedness and his great capacity for sympathy. That the Fool is characterized by such sympathy is evident and testifies that he is an actual, s\if fering personality in the playj but he also represents a quality of Lear, and as Lear attains recojpaition of the truth that the Fool has confronted him with, the king wisely sees himself as a fool, thereby of course acknowledging what the Fool has said, to wit that though a king he is a fool. The Fool's \ri.sdom has resided in his perception of I^^ar's folly, so that when Lear recognizes his own folly, it is reasonable to say that he has appropriated the Fool's wisdom. The scene after the Fool and Lear have physically parted supports these obseirvations. Lear speaks of himself as a fool. He looks upon life as "this great stage of fools," (lV.vi.l87) and, becoming more specific,"! am even the natural fool of fortune," ( IV, vi, 191^-195) He confesses to Cordelia, "I am a very foolish fond old man," (lV,vii,6o) and later, "I am old and foolish," (lV,vii.85) Wisdom and "foolishness" come into common focus with Lear's new understanding. For he has achieved in part the Socratic wisdom of shedding pretensions to a wisdom not possessed. Or else Lear's complete irrationality leads to the Fool's departure. According to Denton J, Snider (from the Furness edition of King Lear , Vol, V, I880): "Wisdom—though to effect its design it has a8s\]med the garb of folly— has not succeeded, > The fool, therefore.

PAGE 142

138 Ironically, as Lear is propelled towards his final clearsightedness in the play his acknowledgment of the fact that he is a fool is expressed not only in words but also throiigh the very act of a madness which in this play is parallel to the blindness of Gloucester. Blind Gloucester can say, "I sttimbled when I saw," Mad Lear not so explicitly but just as vividly says, "I perceived falsely when I was sane," Though anguish and physical exhaustion bring about some degree of actual delirium in Lear, there is in his distraught utterance more wisdom and awarene^.j of situation than was evident in his superficially coherent speech of earlier parts of the play. Just after Lear states, "My wits begin to turn" (lII.ii.oY)— that is, as his delirium accelerates — he shows new capacities for experiencing things beyond his own sphere of personal desire and disappointment. Hitherto sorry only for himself, he now takes a new point of view and expresses interest in the Fool, who shares with him the discomforts of the storm. "Come on, ray boy. How dost, my boy? Art cold?" He also sees value in what would previously have appeared worthless. The art of o\ir necessities is strange And can make vile things [i,e. the straw] precious, , . . ( III, ii. 70-71) During the scene of heightened delirium, Lear gains new insight drops out now; his function must cease when Lear is no longer rational, but has himself turned fool. It was his duty to reflect the acts of the King in their true character, so that the latter might behold what he was doing. When intelligence is gone this is inqpossible," (p, l+SO) Similarly, from Dr, Carl C. Hense: "The Fool has his place in the tragedy only so long as the king is able to perceive the truth veiled by the Fool! 8 humour. There Is ho longer room or need for him after the king becomes crazed. The crisis is the end of the Fool, He vanishes, •goes to bed at midday,' when his beloved master is hopelessly lost," (p. 1^60)

PAGE 143

t 139 into the disguised truth with which the Fool has continuously heen confronting him. For example, when the Fool sings the song of him who has "a little tiny wit" and "must make content with his fortunes fit," (lll.ii.76) Lear responds with uncharacteristic perceptiveness: "True, hoy." He now accepts the truth the Fool presents to him and thus euihieves a greater degree of personal integration. He had several speeches earlier said, "My wits begin to t\irn," hut this turning is in the direction, not of madness, but sanity. Leer — "he that has a little tiny wit"— apparently has that small share of wit not as a reminder of a former abundance but as the beginning: he is finally achieving wit. That his present stage is progress in the Fool's view is clear, especially in the light of the Fool's statement early in the play: "thou hast pared thy wit o'both sides and left nothing i'th' middle." (l.iv. 2014-205) In Act IV, scene vi, Lear, arrayed in flowers, is at his greatest point of sane madness; he sees himself both as fool — it is during this scene that he frequently refers to himself as a fool— and as "nothing," suggesting his resemblance to his "unaccommodated man," Tom o'Bedlam aspect. Lear makes some of his most clear-sighted statements at this time: "they told me I was everything; 'tis a lie." (lV.vi.l06) At the scene of his reconciliation with Cordelia, however his wisdom is not complete; it is not svifficient for the situation he now faces. If his tragic end is a result of his inadequate insight, as it is, then his final tragic realization can be explained in terms of his final insight into the limitations of the wisdom of the Fool, a

PAGE 144

ll^O wisdom which recognizes error and achieves a degree of humility and therefore submission, but a wisdom which is an inadequate basis for dealing with living evil men. Despite the increased mat\jrity which prepares the king for reconciliation with Cordelia, Lear until Cordelia's death has still a limited knowledge of himself and his duty. He sees where he made mistakes--in misjudging his dai:ighters and in mistal:ing merely "the name and th' addition" of a king as adequate bases of his authority. However, he does not yet see his present obligation — that of Q father to a daughter. He is resigned to circumstances as the Fool was. Willing to withdraw with Cordelia to prison, he says, "Upon such sacrifices, my Cordelia,/ The gods themselves throw incense." (V.iii.20-2l) His awareness of obligation comes too late; his recognition that "I might have sav'd her" comes with the bitter fact of her deatn. Disguise helps to characterize Lear but it does not carry us directly into the important moral problems in the play: it does not lead us to a statement of the attitiide and action that is right for such as Lear and Gloucester who are overwhelmed by the evil about them. However, disguise does have relationship to the full meaning of King Leer . It is therefore pertinent to our study of disguise to digress at this point to discuss the way in which the play provides a rationale for the moral problem in order that the relation of disguise to this rationale may be intelligible. An answer to the moral problem of King Lear is suggested in the varying perceptions, interpretations, by a number of characters, of the

PAGE 145

lljl natiiie of their cosmos and their relationship to it. This answer emerges only from a complex of differing, and even opposing, ways of looking at the controlling forces of the universe. Any attempts to extract a system of ethics or metaphysics in King Lear will reward the philosophizer only if he relies on isolated passages; considering the complexity of attitxides expressed in this play, clear-cut answers to the embodied moral problems are impossible to find. The attitvides of the discerning educators, Kent, Edgar, and the Fool, come closest to providing a rationale: that is, a concept of the cosmos whose implications contain a guide for the proper behavior of Lear and Gloucester. In contrast, the belief s and opinions of characters such as Lear, Edmund, and Gloucester are too limited or they are in some way falsifying, as the action of the play makes clear. Nevertheless, the view expressed by Eclraund, though if taken alone it is even more disastrous in its moral consequences than the partial views of Lear and Gloucester, must be assimilated if the total concept of a credible universe is to be consonant with morally tolerable behavior. An interpretation of the cosmos is implied in Lear's oaths and reflects Lear's strongly ego -centric orientation to things about him. His attitude towards the universe is not reflective. He does not interpret it; he implores it to sei^e his interests. Lear's strong self-will and reliance upon some absolute authority is evident in his appropriation of divine sanction for the assertion of his personal desire. It has already been observed that he frequently backs up his cormnands or threats with "By Apollo," or "By Jupiter," and is advised

PAGE 146

11^2 by Kent that he swears in vain. Or he prays only to command: "Hear, Nature! hear, dear goddess, hear'./ Suspend thy purpose, . , ." (l.iv.267) Humbled and disillusioned by adverse situations against which his will is ^ Ijnpotent, Leax demonstrates his gradual change partially through his new attitude towards transcendent forces. He has a new point of view. After suffering Goneril's insults, Lear invokes deity for the first time as one who recognizes the limits of his own will: "0, let me not be mad, not mad, sweet heavenl" (l.v.if9-50) An even greater degree of resignation and a more pathetically supplicant tone is notable in a speech following the abvise received from Regan: You heavens, give me that patience, patience I need'. You see me here, you gods, a poor old man, ^ As full of grief as age; wretched in both. P (n.iv.275-276) Lear's relationship to transcendent being is observable through his lyrical expression; and in these expressions as in other matters, as we have seen, Lear is characteristically unreflective toweards the possible cosmic forces precipitating his disaster. He does not verbalize attitMes, but simply and spontaneously creates an outlet for surging emotion. Other characters express various conflicting attitudes towards I the universe. Attitudes of both determinism and free will are assumed. Gloucester, for example, regards the source of evil In Edgar as aBtronomJ.cally determined: eclipses cause disruption and Edgar's unnaturalneBS follows. These circumstances are found to be "strange"— a word Gloucester

PAGE 147

lU3 uses upon several occasions to testify to the inscrutibility of actual causes and relationships. Edinund, as opposed to Gloucester, claims no refiige in necessity, asserting freedom-we 're \iha.t we are of ourselves — ^ and personal responsibility. Kent contrasts with Lear. Ii/hereas Lear cannot accept any restriction of his own will, Kent though a man who acts accepts good and evil, complying with the inevitable vixen it is beyond his own ability to alter a situation. Together with the Fool, he realizes that one "must make content with his fort\mes fit," as the Fool had admonished the king. Kent sees misfortune as merely a temporary state of fortune; he sees the present through the perspective of the future, through the perspective of eventual change. More aware of vicissitudes and multiple, ^ changeable appearances than Lear, Kent maintains an attitude that is immune to the beguilement of appearance. As Dowden has said, "His [Kent's] loyalty to right has something in it of a desperate instinct, which persists in spite of the appearances presented by the world." In the stocks, Kent takes a far-sighted view of the change in fortune which he feels will eventually come: "Fortune, good night: Smile once more; turn thy wheel." (Il.ii.l80) This attitude sharply contrasts with that of Lear, upon finding Kent so imprisoned: "By Jupiter, T I swear, no." And Kent retorts, "By Juno, I swear, ay." (lI.iv.21-22) Lear resists even the reality of the situation, whereas Kent, fully T\irness (ed,), pp. 13lt-135.

PAGE 148

llfu aware of it, accepts it in the perspective of the next "turn of the wheel." Digax, like Kent, is fax more capable of a hroad perspective and of "hiding the ti^e" than Lear and Gloucester. In his relationship With Gloucester, the disguised Edgar helps his father to readjust his attitudes to conform to actual situations ai^d to hear what can not be changed. In this complex of "varying interpretations of the universe and, inferentially, of one's, responsibility in such a world, there are no tidy answers, vmat emerges as a partial rationale for this problem can be best illustrated by examining the scenes that bring together Gloucester and Edgar. Gloucester is characterized early in the play as one who habitually makes unwise judgments: he denounces Bagar, for example, on too little evidence, and shares the unrealistic, naive attitudes toward personal relationships that characterize Lear. His naivetfe is evident on the occasion ju.t before he is blinded by Cornwall with the encouragement of Regan. He reacts to their obviously hostile, even cruel intentions with uncomprehending simplicity: "You are my guests. Do me no foul play, friend." (lII.iv.SD It shouM be obvious to him that he is not dealing with friendly house guests. Similarly, Gloucester is ill-prepared philosophically to receive anything but kindness from the gods; again he demonstrates his limited perspective. Repeatedly, Gloucester refers to the deities as "kind gods," and later, as "evergentle gods." Therefore, the crushing blow to his belief in benevolence

PAGE 149

1U5 reduced Gloucester to complete disillusionment and despair, a position from ^rtiich Edgar gradually raised him. When Edgar offered to guide the blind man, Gloucester despaired; "I have no way ... I stumbled v;hen I saw" — a fact which now, though physically blind, he perceives. (IV. i. 20—21) Reacting to his "kind gods" belief, Gloucester finds his troubles unbearable: This world I do renounce If I could bear it longer, and not fall To quarrel with you great opposeless wills. My snuff and loathed part of nature should Burn itself out. (lV.vii.35-1^0) Edgar encourages Gloucester to regard the gods in a new way; he refers to them not as the "kindest gods" or gods of "great opposeless wills," but in this way: "the clearest gods . .• . have preserved thee." (lV.vi.73-7^) It is not that the gods are unkind. When Gloucester says, "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods,/ They kill us for their sport" he also has a faulty because incorapDete perception. Convinced through Edgar's help that suicide is not, shall we say, the best solution to his problem, Gloucester decides. Henceforth I'll bear Affliction till it do cry itself "Enough, enough," and die. (lV.vi.75-76) In his attempts to confront Gloucester with himself, Edgar in his own person suggests an attitude he wants Gloucester to adopt, as the Fool did with Lear, For example, when asked \jho he is, Edgar answers the blind man, "A most poor man, made tame, to fortune's blows," (lV.vi,225)

PAGE 150

Ik6 Finally, in a last reproof of Gloucester's recalcitrance in accepting experience, Edgar queries: What in ill thoughts again? Men must endure Their going hence even as their coming hither; Ripeness is all. Come on. Gloucester accedes to Edgar as Lear did to the Fool: "And that's true too." (V.ii.9-11) Stoical resignation and an acceptance of what seem to be uncontrollable events should not obscure one's awareness of his personal responsibility for an evil: Gloucester must come to a realization of this. Gloucester's misfortunes are not the fault only of circvirastancethe evil that lies in Edmund — but in Gloucester himself, according to Edgar. The gods axe just, and of our pleasant vices, Make instruments to plague us. (V.iii. 170-171) The "clearest gods," the "just gods" effect judgment through one's personal guilt. Just as one is a cause of the evil, he is responsible for its removal. It is significant that the last speech in the play is not that of the stoical Kent or Fool, but Edgar. The weight of this sad time we must obey; Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say. (V.iii. 323-321J-) The speech testifies only partly to Edgar's belief that "ripeness is all" and that the acceptance of circumstances should be our response to events; there is also the necessity of recognizing and acting upon our responsibilities. In this Lear failed. The ending of the play

PAGE 151

11^7 finds him humbled and nore aware of self; he has gained resignation, but, as we have seen, resignation has hindered him from perceiving his obligation to Cordelia. Vftien he should have acted to save her, out of a sense of responsibility, he acted, but too late. We are now ready to return from our digression. Our understanding of Lear's tragedy depends upon our understanding of Lear and his moral iiniverse. Both are defined through a general technique which is also observable in Shakespeare's use of disguise in this play. That is, disguise employs multiple perspectives for the purpose of stating fully and dramatically the characters of those in whom we are principally interested; and an answer to the moral problem of King Lear, what to do in the universe he inhabits, is suggested in the varying interpretations, offered by a ntimber of characters, of the nature of their cosmos and their relationship to it. In each case, that is in the characterizing of Lear and in the characterizing of his universe, the very technique that is used for the exposition dramatically testifies to the vmdefinable locus of truth: it has to be approached indirectly and on multiple avenues. Only when the truth is approached in this way, says the play, is there an answer to the questions — wherein does a charewiter have his identity and where is on interpretation of the universe that will give a basis upon which moral action can be talcen? Truth exists only in a complex. Edgar is a concrete manifestation of the complexity of truth and the manner in which it assimilates things separate and superficially disconnected. His identity lies not only in vhat he most literally is — Edgar--but also in what he literally

PAGE 152

1U8 is not — the forms taken with his various disguises. He expresses himself through his concealment-the only means wherehy his truth will begin to be tolerable to both Lear and Gloucester. Edgar's disguises are a dramatically effective adaptation of the "rogwe in multiple disguise" convention. Nowhere is Edgar -indisguise a rogue, in the first place. Edgar flexibly simulates five different disguises, five forms through which he subjiigates his true identity to serve the demands of immediate situations. The roles he assumes often enable him in some vray to convey attitudes which those who i)erceive him finally adopt. Edgar's disguise with Lear has been discussed. Through mad Tom Lear was more clearly confronted with himself. Only through disguise could Edgar and his truth be presented to Gloucester, blind physically. and blind to the worth of Edgar. Edgar replaces one disguise by another in order to lead Gloucester into a better point of view. Edgar as mad Tom becomes submerged gradually into Edgor-the-peasant, in order, so it seems, to accommodate himself to rendering new services. His nakedness. Important to the characterization of Lear, is covered --he tells Gloucester he has put on the garb of a peasant --and his speech becomes coherent. After a few initial speeches Gloucester himself notes this: Methinks thy voice is alter'd, and thou speak' st In better phrase and matter than thou didst. (lV.vi.7-8) For his new role, that of guiding the blind man and directly arguing against his extreme despair, Edgar needed this new form.

PAGE 153

lJj-9 Bdcar aeain simulates a chance of identity. After leading Gloucester to the cliff, Edgar next apjjears to the old man (who is deluded into thinliing he has jujnped), as a peasant. In this guise he . maligns his previous form, represented as standing on the cliff above, vihose eyes, according to Edgar's report, . . . were tvra full moons; he had a thousand noses, Horns shell: M and waved like the [enridgod] sea. It v/as some fiend; (iV.vi. 69-72) This new helper, vfho is supijosedly a peasant, is in a position to point out to Gloucester, "Tliy life 'a a niracle," Inducing the father to change. Gloucester resolves. Henceforth I'll bear Affliction till it do cry out itself "Enough, enough," and die. (IV.vi. 75 -77) Edgar appears also as a messenger to Albany; he assiimes the form of a Southern peasant to fight Oswald; and he confronts and eventually defeats Edmund in the guise of an armed unnamed knight. Edgar's various disguises may vrell be considered the one Shakespearean concession to the fashionable "multi-disguise," in which frequent changes of costume account for the play's shifting and episodic development. If regarded in the liglit of this convention, however, the subtlety and dramatic function of Edgar -in -disguise is clearly apparent. Shaltespeare ' s use of disguise is consonant v^ith his mature perspective, as contrasted with his earlier and simpler manipulation of the typical Elizabethan double vision — the emblematic or analogizing inclination. In characterizing Lear Shalcespeare works obliquely,

PAGE 154

150 approaching qualities in Lear through outside points of view-other choxacters that reflect him — just as the meaning of a matiire Shalcespeareon play such as King Lear lies in a complex of paralleling, opposing, or paradoxical components. Such a device for getting at meaning is not uncommon to the Renaissance mind, and is in evidence in the art of the period. That part of the Renaissance vfhich Wylie Sypher has Dabelled "mannerism" is characterized by the use of both multiple points of view and a double functioning of members. The mannerist temperament, not limited to a particular medium of artistic creation, is explained as follov^s: Mannerism is experiment with many techniques of disproportion and disturbed balance; with zigzag, spiral, shuttling motion; with space like a vortex or alley; with oblique or mobile points of view and strange --even abnormal perspectives that yield approximations rather than certainties.! Use is certainly made in King Lear of oblique and mobile points of view and of foils and doubles which create a "disturbed balance." In King Lear the "distiirbed balance" resides in the forcing together of both similarity and dissimilarity. The play relates separate identities and opposltes. In Shakespeare's early plays the balance provided by foils was not a disturbed one. One character or his situation was paralleled by another character and thus it was reinforced through a wylie Sypher, Four Stages of Renaissance Style (Anchor Books Original. Garden City, New York: Doubleday an.d Co., Inc., 1955), PP. II6-II7. See also the discussion of the complexity of Shakespeare and Donne's vision in Patrick Cruttwell, The Shakespearean Moment . (New York: Random House, i960).

PAGE 155

151 fairly simple analogy; just as the balance of a Petrarchan conceit vms not a disturbed one. Shakespeare often uses similarities, not simply to define one terra by another ; but to force a comparison that issues in a contrast — a device typical of Donne. The loyal Kent and the faithful Fool show both what Lear is and what he is not; the two characters reflect Lear and represent him in many ways; yet the devotion of both sejrvant and fool is a quality unknown as yet to Lear. Symmetries in the play's structvtre are only partial, Gloucester's situation is not Lear's, for example. The fact, emerging from the play, that there are no easy single answers to the sources of evil or value as represented in the play, is apparent when \re consider the effect of s;/Tnmetry and analogy in King Lear . Foils don't restate; they bring up opposites. Over against the evil of Edmund, .the bastard, there is the evil of the legitimate offspring. Goner il and Regan. Over against the valued loyalty and enacted responsibility of Kent and eventually Lear, there is the loyalty of" Oswald— a loyalty that is put to wrong uses. Shakespeare uses disguise to explore both evil and good, Robert Heilman examines the relationship of disguise to a context of evil forces: psychological disguise is the garb of the wicked, whereas physical disguise is the defense of the guileless and persecuted, Thus^ Edgar's nakedness is ironically a defense againat an evil world. Heilman HRobert Heilman, Tliis Great Stage; Image and Structure in M.: Lear (Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press, 19

PAGE 156

B 152 examines disguise, then, in the light of a character's responses to a world, of evil, a world in which appearances are misleading and the actual is discerned with difficulty. VJhat Heilman suggests is provocative, but he does not give attention to the fact that Shakespeare also uses disguise for people whose persecuted state is less significant than their quest to learn or communicate the true nature of circumstances and personalities. The false or the indirect may furnish truth— just as disguise reveals. Conversely, what appear to "be truths may be misleading in the understanding of a particular circumstance. For example, Cornwall, early in the play, decries Kent's straightforwardness, which, he says, must not be regarded as an indication of honesty. It is true, as Cornwall observes, that blunt speakers may . . . harbour more craft and more corrupter ends Than twenty silly ducking observants That stretch their duties nicely. (n.ii. 106-110) However, the platitude is false in this particular context, with reference to Kent. The play, then, is in part a stMy of ways of looking at things. Who is Lear and wiiat is he? His characterization would be incomplete apart from his meanings that are reflected back upon him from the Fool and Edgar. And conversely, their identities lie partly in the person of King Lear. Who are the wise and who the foolish? Paradoxically, the Fool is wise and Lear's expression of his own foolishness demonstrates his Socratic-like wisdom. On the other hand, the morally foolish Goner il

PAGE 157

153 presumes to call Albany a fool-"a moral fool," and "a vain fool" (lV.iii.5O and 6l)--but the actic.i of the play reveals Albany's choices to be vfiser than those of his accuser. How do appearance and reality relate? Clothes, the superficial "additions of a king" and ceremony, though they are sometimes authentic, are often erroneous guides to underlying actualities: appearances mislead; they deceive Lear. Yet Shakespeare also uses the technique of disguise to reveal. The identity of Edgar is hidden by his outward appearance--a deceptive exterior; however, the personality of Edgar is revealed through the same device. Edgaj's feelings £ire vividly characterized when he assumes a disguise. His father's unwarranted attempt upon his life made the disguise necessary, but Edgar's continual difficulty in sustaining the disguise and his determination to maintain it even after the original motive was no longer applicable results from his sincere affection for his father. The necessity of restraint, occasioned by Edgar's disguise, also reinforces the atmosphere of overvnro\ight emotions that keep the entire play charged with tragic tension.

PAGE 158

CHAPTER VI DISGUISE AMD THE SHAKESPEAREAN PERSPECTIVE "Perspective it is best painter's art." m (Sonnet 2k) ShaJtespeare's use of a fomi of deception-disguise — for a revelation of vfhat is true is indicative of his interest in the relation betvreen seeming and being and his concern v/ith the locus of truth in a play. That which seems true or is readily accepted as an adequate guide to truth may be found to mislead; on the other hand, that vfhich is considered to be a form of deception may be a conveyance of the under stauiding to vfhat is really so. This chapter will compare Shake T speake's characteristic use of perspective in his mature plays — that is, his use of multiple points of view in stating what is true with his earlier use of foils and antitheses in the manner of the typical Elizabethan double vision. Through such a comparison Shakespeare's alliance with the new vrays of looking at things, which typify the critical attitvides of the seventeenth -centviry, will be evident. In his investigation of the truth of a situation or of the nature of a character Shaltespeare continually presses beyond vrhat is <^ superficially given. Appearances which may be suspect are dramatically examined for their relation to truth; they may either blind one to what is true, or they may, under the guise of concealment, reveal \rtiat is true. The character whose identity is concealed through his assumption of a disguise is just one example of the many aspects of seeming that 15»f

PAGE 159

155 Shalcespeare attends to. Another, which is fundamental to many of the situations of Shaltespeare's plays, is that of the dissembler or the hj-pocrite — any character who disguises his mind; whereas Viola says, "I am not what I am," lago says, "I am what I am not." Allied to Shakespeare's concern with false appearances is his concern with false assumption. False attitudes are, for example, not only a consequence of the dissembling character, who has disguised his outward form or hia mind, but they seem to be the natural expressions of such people as Malvolio and Aguecheek, v;ho have an inherent capacity for seeing and perceiving falsely. Shakespeare, as we have seen, brings situations involving the misapprehensions and misconceptions of his characters into common focus j that is particularly evident in Twelfth Hight . Even Shakespeare's early disguise comedies indicate his concern vrith themes involving disguise, with probing the surfaces of appearance and assumptjon. Not only in the plays, but in the sonnets too the dramatist's interest in appearance is conspicuous. Sonnet 69 decries judgments based on the mere outward form of his subject, "those parts of thee that the world's eye doth view." The young man's character unfortunately does not concvir with favorable outward show. Those who judge him superficially are described as "utt'ring bare truth, even so as foes commend./ [Thy] outward thus with outward praise is crown 'd." In the context of sonnet 102, the form or display of love is also found to be less than the content of feeling (as in the case of Cordelia):

PAGE 160

156 My love is strength 'ned, though more weak in seeming; I love not less, thovigh less the shov/^ appear. In the sonnets the alliance betvreen seeing and perceiving is expressed most conspicuously in sonnet 735 "That time of year thou mayst in me behold." • Another aspect of apparent truth which may be proved false by the action of the play is the supposed truthfulness of various attitudes that are commonly and traditionally accepted in Elizabethan England. Some of these erroneous attitudes have to do with clothes. For example, pompous appearance and dress — ceremony in general-Shakespeare examines for its appropriateness to its v:earer. People in the Elizabethan age tended to look upon ceremonious garb as a trustworthy symbol of \inderlying qualities of majesty and superiority in a king. Sometimes in Shakespeare's plays, however, because a king places undue reliance upon his outward appearance, he deceives himself. Richard II, the weakest of Shakespeare's kings, dwells upon the outward manifestations of kingship. He finds his supremacy to a great extent Just here; he is a king, part of which involves looking lilce a king. Just as an eagle or the sun are supreme because they look supreme. According to this play, superficial similarities are not indicative of a thoroughgoing identification, Just as in other plays the disguised person's sex was not changed vriien he assumed the clothes of the opposite sex: Shaicespeare, in this play, •kreorge Ian Duthie, Shakespeare (London: Hutchinson's University Library, 1955)^ P« 119 • Duthie proposes that Shakespeare rebels against the unmysterious universe of Hierarchy, Order, and Chain of Being-"the Love Joy Layer -calce,"

PAGE 161

157 undermines the accepted Elizabethan belief in correspondence. Lear mistEikes the quality of kingship for its ceremonious forms, and only after severe trials recognizes that "robes and furr'd go^ms hide all." That the outward form ought to concur with the act\ial state of mind and real intention of a character is insisted upon repeatedly diiring the examination of appearance in King Lear . The attempt to malce a valid identification between physical appearance and v;hat it symbolizes is behind Lear's tearing off his own clothes, to identify himself with mad Tom's unadorned, basic humanity. Similarly, Kent laments the discord betvreen Oswald's appearance and character as he disdainfully remarks: That such a slave as this should wear a sword, Who vrears no honesty. And the concluding speech of the play-that of Edgar— urges the concordance of another outward form-speech --with the speaker's actual feeling. The weight of this sad time we must obey; Spealt what we feel, not what vre ought to say. Ceremonious forms, while they ore significant, may be a means of obscuring somethir,^ more important, just as ±i Love's Labour's Lost "truth falsely blinds." Timon of Athens bitterly realizes the limitation of wealthy show. Usixrpers such as Richard III, Macbeth, and Claudius are attracted to the false glory of kingship. The tendency of ceremony to obscure the complete quality of a king is most explicitly and extensively stated in the battle-field soliloquy of Henry V.

PAGE 162

158 And what have kings, that privates have not too, Save ceremony; save general ceremony? Tj'pes of dress other than those associated with ceremony are reexemined by Shakespeare. In Twelfth Night , it will be remembered, conventional attitudes tovfards the significance of clothes are foiand to be erroneous. Olivia arrayed herself in moiirning clothes, a form supposedly appropriate to an inward state. However, Olivia's outward appearance is not congruent with her real feelings and even hides them. The nature of Viola, on the other hand, is supposedly concealed and certainly misrepresented through incongruent attire for a woman. Yet her personality is given expression thereby. Feste, dressed in motley, which traditionally designates the fool, denies the appropriateness of outward appearance and linderlying nature — "I wear no motley in my brain" — (l.v.62) just as Rosalind denied indrectly the implications of her mannish attire. And in Measure for Measure Lucio, speaking of Friar Lodowick, says, "' Cucullus non facit monachum . ' Honest in nothing but in his clothes." (V.i.263) Besides looking beyond the conventioneil attitudes regarding external appearances--clothes. disguises, and ceremony, for exaraple--the dramatist explores other conventional beliefs too easily assumed true Other ceremonious forms are suspected: the critical, idealistic Brutus is wary of ceremonious overtures of friendship: When love begins to sicken and decay It useth an enforced ceremony. There are no tricks in plain and simple faith; But hollow men, like horses hot at hand. Make gallant show and promise of their mettle. (Jvilius Caesar IV. ii. 20-25)

PAGE 163

159 by the Elizabethans. Kie high regard for both precept and example as adequate guides in an ethical situation is open to Shakespeare's scrutiny. The Elizabethan reverence for precepts is well knovm. The vast number of compilations of precepts and the popularity of such works as Erasmus' Mages and the writings of Seneca and Plutajrch attest this reliance upon generalized truth. And, as Jacob Zeitlin has pointed out, "It is a striking circumstance that Plato, in spite of the magic attaching to his name, does not get into English at all, for he does not 1 formulate rules of conduct in concise sentences." Yet truisms, assumed to be workable or trustworthy according to the attitude of the day, are not always so in the context of the Shakespearean situation. Both Othello and Hamlet , for example, contain untrue truisms or statements of advice. In Othello Brabantio, contemplating the Duke's "wise sayings" about patience, observes their inefficacy and limitation outside the artifice of language. The Duke had said: To mourn a mischief that is past and gone Is the next way to draw new mischief on. What cannot be preserved when fortune takes. Patience her injury a mock'ry makes. The robb'd that smiles steeJ-s something from the thief; He robs himself that spends a bootless grief. (l.iii.20U-209) Brabantio objects: Jecdb Zeitlin, "Commonplaces in English Life and Letters," The Journal of English and Germanic Philology , XIX (1920), kT.

PAGE 164

l6o These sentences, to sugar or to gall Being strong on both sides, are equivocal. But words are words j t never yet did hear That the bruis'd heart was pierced through the ear. ( I. iii. 216-219) The fund of patience is simply not sufficient to pay gx-ief . The fact of a real losa and grief is slighted by the truisms of the Duke. Polonius, in Hamlet , has a ready supply of vrise precepts; not all of these contain wise advice, though they may be phrased in a captivating, disarming manner. Polonius plays with the true-false antithesis: "This above aLl: to thine own self be true,/ And it must follovr, as the night the day,/ Thou canst not then be false to any man." (l. iii. 78-80) Whether or not this is true (and good advice) depends upon the sort of nature the man has. Claudius followed his own evil nature, for example, and vms thereby false to more than one man. Polonius' precept is one which obviously needs qualification when directed towards specific situations. The sixteenth century highly esteemed the study of the life of a great person, his choices and their consequences, as providing an adequate guide for action. In harmony with this tradition Hamlet looks to Fortinbras and Horatio for precedents, neither of vrtiich suffices for Hamlet's own particular predicament, "Readiness is all" is as close as Hamlet can formulate a verbal answer. What was an answer --the truth, in a sense --for Fortinbras and for Horatio could not be taken over as an answer for Hamlet. Donne understood his situation when he said, "Stand

PAGE 165

l6l on two truths; neither is true to you." Truth, then, is not found in single precepts, in the following of single models of behavior, or in the one-sided point of view which correspondence or analogy affords, just as the ghosts which parade before the sleeping Richard III and Richmond on the eve of their battle are to Richard terrifying visions, and to Richmond, "fairest boding dreams," assuring him of the intervention of "God and good angels"; what the ghosts actually are is expressible only contextually and as a reflection of the interpreting character. Tlie ways characters variously saw and perceived what lay before them in Shalcespeare's works, while demonstrating a range of styles and perspectives which elude over -all classification, taken in sequence bear witness to his turning away from the use of proportion and simple comparison towards more life-like complexities of many sorts. This, of course, is part of a widely recognized aspect of his development. The earlier plays rely heavily upon foils, paralleling characters and situations, and clear-cut antitheses for techniques of representation. It is useful to express this early technique in the idiom of Sypher, who in his study of stages in Renaissance style discusses Shakespeare within the category of an artistic perspective. Sypher defines Shakespeare's early style in terms of "mechanical foreshortening." This style characterizes plays in which proportions are exactly stated. The action, for ^om "To the Countess of Bedford, T'have written then." The Complete Poems of John Donne , Alexander B. Grosart (ed.), (London: Robson and Sons, 1573), p. 37.

PAGE 166

162 example, of Romeo and Juliet , confined as it is by the walls of Verona, its orchards, square, and rooms, is measured in the careful ratios of those Italian paintings whose composition was subjected to simple geometric solutions. The contrasting movements of the plot are arranged like the conjugation of lines in orthogonal space, and the dramatic illusion is won in an almost naive way by forcing the perspective — which has the effect of destroying the "middle groxind." The mechanics are too clear: Romeo is scaled against Paris and Mercutio — etc.-^ In Romeo and Juliet , as in The Tvro Gentlemen of Verona and other early plays, the values, too, settle into symmetrical patterns of antitheses: love and hate, rashness and caution, tolerance and intolerance, faithfulness and unfaithfulness, day and night, and so forth. The actions of the early plays are also in careful balance; Love's Labour's Lost is the most notable example . The symmetry and order of the temporary exchange of partners is noted particularly by Harold Jenkins, who generalizes: "Indeed the movement of the whole play is like a wellordered dance in vrhich each of the participants repeats the steps of 2 the others." The art of the Renaissance reflects a similar use of correspondences and balanced opposites for proportion. The early attempts in using linear perspective were concomitant with the Renaissance desire for order; "it was during the Renaissance that painters systematized the use of these devices [perspective] so as to present an orderly vievr of Sypher, p. 80. 2 Jenkins, p. ^3«

PAGE 167

163 nature, a view which could conceivably be seen from one particular position. ..." Throughout the Renaissance the medieval-like use of contrast, such as opposing heaven and earth in a single picture, was employed. Examples include Charonton's "Coronation of the Virgin," Raphael's "Dispute of the Holy Sacrament," and Guereino's "Burial of St. Petronilla."^ Correspondences and "balanced opposites flourished, for art vms striving for the proportion so essential to the settled order of the vrorld. In the words of a Renaissance .contemporary: . Proportion causeth harmonie in n\unber, in bodies beaut ie, in humours health, in minde vertue; as contrariwise disproportion produseth in numbers discord, in bodies deformities, in humours infirmity, and in the minde vice.^ The early Shakespearean play too easily, perhaps, sets its dramatic situation off against a Renaissance background which judges it through the perspective it affords . Richard II is regarded by Sypher as typical of the Renaissance style in which there is dramatic disharmony between the foreground surface and "unified deep space." "Amid the pageant of English history Richard is arrested in lyrical attitudes, merely a contour of royalty, who studies his worn image in the mirror he holds before him. . . ." The effect is a two-dimensional one. •'•Frank P. Cline, Jr., "Presentation of Space in the Plays of John Webster" (unpublished Master's thesis, Dept. of English, University of Florida, I958), p. 8. ^ Ibid ., p. 3*+. ^Annibale Romei, The Courtiers Academy , trans. J. Kepers (1598)^ as cited in Winny, p. 211, ^Sypher, p. 93.

PAGE 168

161^ The comparatively simple perspectives of analogi' — with their clear delineation of both similarity and contrast— do not belong to the style of Shakespeare's matxire work. Wherever an issue is couched in terms of two sides, each seeking an absolute, truth suffers; or, in Shalcespeare's words, "On both sides thus is simple truth suppressed." (Sonnet I3O) As early as the sonnets Shakespeare treats analogy, (granted it be that of the artificial Petrarchan love contention), with levity. Beginning vrith "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun" in that familiar parody, sonnet I30, Shakespeare takes a disruptingly realistic attitude. The "truth" of a character --his variety of qualities, his full identity--is manifest not through the over -simplification or even distortion, of analogy, but througli the establishment of various dramatic points of view; frameworks such as the disguise of Rosalind or the characters surrounding Lear provide a backdrop of these interpreting points of viev;-. Disguise, as we noted in Chapter III, is allied with the Renaissance double vision— the allegorizing habit, by means of vriaich one level of meaning exists largely for the sake of another. Hovrever, in the later Shalcespeare disguise functions with relevance to all its meanings. Grosser in The Painter's Eye examines this sort of difference in the vrorks of art of the Renaissance and the modern period. Modern art, he proposes, is distinguishable because all of its meanings are equally Inrportant. In this respect the effect of Shakespeare's disguised heroines is that of a modern perspective as well as that of the seventeenth centxiry mannerist. Rosalind's total meaning, for

PAGE 169

I » 165 example, lies both in her ferainini-cy that is highlighted by her assumption of a disguise and in the masculine aggressiveness and good sense, made apparent through her dissembling. Alternatives are thus reconciled, not excluded. This shock of Rosalind, and Julia, in disguise, as we have seen, is a type of counterpoint expressible elLso in terras of what Grosser calls Neo -Classicism in art. In all these examples — including that of disguise, which I add to Grosser 's --the effect of the juxtaposed incongruities is unlike the effect of medieval and Renaissance allegory. The two components of the modern double vision are reciprocal in meaning and, as in the case of Rosalind's personality, are equal to more than the sum of their parts. To examine this problem of the manner in vfhich a character accrues his full meaning through a frame of reference, Polonius offers an interesting example. Appraisals of Polonius by Shalcespearean critics have raised opposing attitudes. According to Claiie McGlinchee , Polonius gives good practical advice; whereas to Josephine W. Bennett Polonius appears to be "a pompous, tiresome, and foolish old windbag," with his trite Latin quotations. A more comprehensive viewpoint has been offered by T. Walter Herbert, who conclvides that Polonius has different meanings to different chajcacters, and his real meaning-the answer to "who is Polonius?"— lies in this complex of interpretations and must Claire McGlinchee, "Still Harping," Shakespeare Quarterly , VI (1955)^ 362-361f; and Josephine Waters Bennett, "These Few Precepts," Shakespeare Quarterly , VII (1956), 275-276.

PAGE 170

» 166 talce them all into account. Similarly, one must depend upon the personality of the Fool, Edgar and Kent in compiling the character of Lear and the personality of Roseilind-in-disguise and Rosalind -out-of -disguise, or Henry V-in-disguise and Henry V-out -of -disguise in summing up those qualities that composed these characters. Shylock is another prohlematicEil character who must be approached with a shifting point of view. Should we regard him as a heartless villain or as one who is pathetically a victim of a role society forces him into? Is he a man "more sinned against than sinning"? An interpretation of hiS' personality must accommodate hoth Shylock the villain (Grationo's view) and Shylock the injured Jew (Shylock' s own view), a combination which necessarily arouses' ambivalent responses in us. Shaicespeaxe's technique of establishing a full meaning throiigh more than one frame of reference is a technique used by more modern vnriters. In examining a situation or a character, instead of lining up a series of analogical sitiiations or characters, Shaltespeare surrounds his object, in pin-wheel fashion, supplying a variety of spokes pointing towards their hub. This is the device of Browning's The Ring and the Book and that of much of Henry James's fiction. Thus, Hamlet is interpreted through the perspectives of Gertrude and Claudius, with reT. Walter Herbert, "Diverse Estimates of Polonius' Character: An Ebcample of Dramatic Technique," Renaissance Papers (Duke University: Published by the Southeastern Renaissance Conference, 1957), PP. 82-86.

PAGE 171

I 167 gard to the nat\are and reason for his madness. Each presents a different aspect of his problem, one that is in a measiire true of Hamlet but is instigated by the guilt feelings of the interpreting person at the moment, Simileirly, Polonius is neither exclusively a Wiseman nor an "old windbag"; his character does not reside in an either -or antithesis, but in a both -and paradox. And on interpretation of Shy lock must similarly be responsive to varying perspectives. Lear has his full identity made intelligible through his responsibilities and relationships to other characters, even his sense of identity with them. The complexity of a character's full identity is explored also in many modern literary situations. In Daphne de Kaurier's The Scapegoat , John, the Englishman, discovers his full potential for both good and evil through his physical resemblance to and participation in the life of Comte Jean de Gue. Through assuming the identity of the Frenchman, John discovers a new dimension to his own character. Similarly, the modern literary existential hero recurrently finds his identity and meaning in a complex of relationships, despite his inescapable alone ness. The individual, like the specific situation, has his full meaning in a frame of reference. In this attitude both sixteenth century analogizing and the seventeenth centtiry mannerism concvir in their searches for what is actually so. But the Renaissance frame of reference was used to augment one ultimate idea, or lesson, in its more didactic form. The resultant meaning was not an equivocal one. Allegory, with its

PAGE 172

168 disguises or emblems, masks and physical and psychological raisidentity, is in line ^/ith the Morality tradition which tatight a clear-cut particular, though generalized, lesson, "one unequivocal lesson," as Mackenzie says. Shakespeare travels far from this tradition. Through his perspective, Shakespeare, like Donne, may jtixtapose two things, situations that seem to be analogous or in some way similar and thus force an awareness of basic differences. Or Shalcespeaxe may employ what seems to be pure contrast, of the sort which delighted the Petrarchan sonneteer to have its parts issue in mutually dependent units which defy the limitations of their sum. Ambiguity and paradox are the result. Truth often lies not in simple analogy nor in one set of antithetical qualities but in a paradox compounded of these, as we saw in King'Iear . The "answers" to a matiire Shakespearean tragedy, always tentative and unlimited, are bound up in paxadoxes. Paxadox, a rhetorical mode superficially used in the Petrarchan conceit and used with more serious and consequential intent in Shalcespeaxe 's word-play,^ provides a kind of structure in many of Shalcespeaxe 's plays: disguise and setting provide this paradoxical structure. Disguise, as we have seen, proffers a kind of visual paradox. And in the judgment of Benjamin T. Spencer the same rhetorical mode is extensively employed for structure in Antony and Cleopatra, where the paradox of Antony is set off against not disguise but setting— the two worlds which compel him tov/axds tw irreconcilable 1 Mackenzie, p. 252. 2 1957) ^^° ^'^^ ^' ^^°°^' ShaJcespeore's Word -Play (London: Methuen,

PAGE 173

169 interests. Here, according to Spencer, paradox is used as nowhere else in Shakespeare to pervade and dominate behavior and catastrophe, unify1 ing the play; language, situation, and character are paradoxical. Antony, for instance, is inclined hoth to Rome, his career and military obligations, and to Cleopatra and the indulgence of Egypt. The action of the play demonstrates his inability to satisfy both claims upon his 2 personality. His dilemma is paradoxical. Setting is used to establish paradox in As You Like It . Like the disguised character, setting combines heterogeneous elements and might be called a physical paradox. The play, as we found in Chapter III, has to do with establishing a mean for many opposites; and the answer to the extremes of the play is in terms of paradoxes such as disguise and setting afford. Beginning in a recognizable, real world of the court, Asjfou Like It soon shifts to an imaginative unreal world which is an amalgam of the conventional pastoral setting, the golden age of Robin Hood, southern climes, and on English countryside --a geographical and temporal paradox. Imaginatively projected beyond the reach of the claims of realism upon probability the forest of Arden provides a setting in which one can easily suspend his belief. Surely this forest is a place jBenjamin T. Spencer, " Anthony and Cleopatra and the Paradoxical Metaphor," Shalcespeare Quarterly , IX, 373-37^. See also Kenneth Muir, "Shakespeare and Rhetoric," Shakespeare Jahrbuch , XC (195*^), i^9-68. Muir proposes that the later. plays show not a rejection of the rhetorical devices but a masterly use of them.

PAGE 174

170 60 indistinct, such a "nothinG," that anything can happen; in this poetically conceived forest, pa3^ trees, serpents, and lions coexist with oalc trees and pastoral shepherds Just as compatibly as Touchstone does with Sllvius. ^ Arden is a place of great variety and it is inhabited by radically opposed characters. To bring them at last into harmonious relationships as probable habitants of a common world requires strange manipulation and Arden is Just the place for it. And Rosalind, in disguise, is a suitable agent to manipulate the action. As we have seen in Chapter III, Rosalind dominates the play, standing between the extremes of the play, interpreting, and helping to resolve them. Shalcespeare Juxtaposes many opposites in As You Lilce It. The I conventional pastoral is presented and duly burlesqued. Rosalind is both man and vroman. There is a constant shifting of point of view, which Shakespeaare in several ways epitomizes. Outside of the use of disguise and outside of the paradoxical setting, this oblique manner of establishing what something actually is by its reference to various expressions of seeming is evident in two attitudes towards old age. The . :;./en ages speech, it will be remembered, concludes with a capitulation of man's final decrepitude -"sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything." Jenkins notes that limnediately after the speech, an aged man appears and is addressed as "venerable."^ How is o^ age to be regarded? Are senile men and venerable men as different as they are '•Jenkins, v» ^9»

PAGE 175

171 thought to be or do the terras simply represent different ways of looking at the some thing? As You Like It , within an ohviously comic situation, raises the same sort of questions ahbut the real nature of a person or situation that confronted us in our discussion of the tragedy. King Leax ; Is the Ibol also wise? Is inadness reasonable? Is Providence kind, harshly just, or indifferent? Partial judgments modify each other, contradicting perhaps, but never cancelling as they interact. Shalcespeare uses various perspectives for revelation, as this study has recorded. That it is a conscious interest is indicated by his Imowledge of techniques of art that relate to point of view and his 1-iovrledge of the meanings of "perspective" that were cvirrent in his day. The dramatist is interested in ways of looking* things, and he is aware of current techniques in painting: he speaks of "painting in little" ( Hamlet 11,;" ." .588-392), the "natural perspective" painting in Twelfth Hight (V.i.22'<-), and the "perspectives, which rightly gazed upon/ Show nothing' but confusion; ey'd avrry/ Distinguish form," ( Richard II II, ii. 19) The specialized meaning of "perspective" found in these two quotations is noted in the Oxford English Dictionary as one of the then current usages of the word, denoting "a picture or figure constructed as to produce some fantastic effect; e.g. appearing distorted or confused except from one particvilar point of view, or presenting totally different aspects from different points." Mr. Sypher does not mention these "perspectives" as illustrative of the mannerist mode of perceiving; they do, however, exemplify what ho generalizes as techniques of the mannerist, the distorted or oblique poiat of view.

PAGE 176

» 172 The early use of "perspective" to signify various optical devices which distorted images is also employed by Shakespeare. It is thus used metaphorically in Alls Well That ^ Ends V/ell to objectify the power of contempt upon one's evaluation. "Contempt his scornfull Perspective did lend me, Which warpt the line of every other favor." (V.iii.1^8) Shalcespeare's interest in and use of the word "perspective" is not limited to a very specialized and ephemereJ. vogue JJi painting, or to the now obsolete meaning of the telescoping instrument. ShaJtespeare ' s perspective also involves allying physical perception with mental conception. And we find that "perspective" vras also used in Elizabethan England vrith reference to conceptual points of view. The Oxford English Dictionary reports this meaning: "The relation or proportion in which the parts of a subject are viewed by the mind; the aspect of a matter or object of thought, as perceived from a particular mental point of view." The illustration is, fittingly, from Bacon's Advancement of Learning . "We have endeavoxired in these cur partitions to observe a kind of perspective, that one part may cast light upon another" (as in the interaction of characters in Shakespeare). Seeing things in a new context of relationship is important to Bacon and other seventeenth century thinkers . Approving the use of this sort of conceptual point of view, Shakespeare claims in sonnet 2k that "perspective it is best painter's art." Perspective here has to do with conceiving something through a relationship. In Henry V, the young king, in love with Katharine, explains that he "cannot see many a fair French city for one fair French

PAGE 177

173 maid that stands in my way." He is echoed by the French king: "Yes, my lord, you see them per spectively. ..." (V.ii.3i|-l|--3l4-8) The oblique and mobile points of view ;rtiich fit Shalcespeare ' s use of disguise are typical of a seventeenth century mode of perceiving usually defined with reference to Donne. Donne, certainly approaches his subject from varying angles, probing through this perspective and that. He goes around and around his subject. This new technique of representation, termed "mannerism" by Sj'pher, already has been identified in this study as belonging to the perspectives in King Lear . It is there associated with a lack of security, resolution, and equilibrium, with perspectives which yield disproportions and disturbed balances— approximations instead of certainties. The more mature plays P trouble us with ambiguities and imprecision. As Sypher notes, truths may be conveyed, as in Macbeth , through instruments of darloiessj here Shalcespeare ' s perspective, like that of Leonardo's "The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne" defies the limitations of terrestrial perspective— a closed system— and is oriented more to infinity than to the finite. Reality in King Lear is associated npt with the clearly definable and systematic but with an indistinct area of surmise, where "nothing that is so is so." • ^e relatively late Measure for Measure is a mannerist play which employe disguise. It is manner istic in its use of indirection— the disguise of the Duke and the substitution trick— to expose the evil in Angelo aM spur him to tolerable deeds. The approach is oblique. The play seems to propose a problem in society, but even though the action •'cypher, p. 81.

PAGE 178

Yjh concludes with an exposure of pretence and superficiality in judging; there is no resolution for all the evils of Vienna. The answer does touch upon public duty, but there it only partially hints at a saner cityj the resolution, such as it is, moreover, is effected through means that rest uneasily upon the fijial action. Angelo's virtuous facade, his "unsoil'd name" and the supposed austerity of his life, are no longer effective, whereas Claudio's guilt is found to be equally superficial with Angelo's purity. At any rate he is found to be not worthy of capital punishment. But there ore the more serious, abiding, social evils that Burvive--the problems represented by Mistress Overdone the bawd, the shifty Pompey, and Elbow the bungler, as well as the superficially ridiculous but authentic problem raised by the drtonl: man in Jail— the problem of whether or not a drunk man should be hanged. Both in his re-examination of traditional attitudes and in his use of the individual perspectives to surround the truth of a situation, Shalcespeare is allied with the new critical thinl:ers of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries: Montaigne and Bacon. Turning av/ay from a reliance upon generalized truths, these thinlcers emphasize the value of individual perception and Judgment. In his essays Montaigne, it will be recalled, explores his own individual experience, vininterested in laying down precepts or evaluating self through dogma, while plays such as Hamlet and Othello help to denonstrate the limitation of precept in a given dilemma. Bacon, too, repudiates commonplaces; "all of them carrying merely the face of a school and not of a world — referring to . . ,

PAGE 179

175 pedantical divisions— without all life or respect to action." Bacon's aim was to shake men from the habit of observing data only through traditionally accepted generalizations, to see differences as well as similarities, just as Shalcespeare and Donne force an awareness of differences through an examination of similarities found in analogies, for example. Bacon helps point the way to reconsidering the accepted truism that the vrorld is as we see it. A suspicious attitude tovmrds appearances, shared by Bacon and Shakespeare, is an evidence of the new critical growth of the seventeenth century. The well Icnown "Idols of the Tribe" describes the falsity of the assumption that the universe is as we see it, against which Bacon remonstrates: "All perceptions . . . are according to the raeasm-e of the individual and not . . . the universe." On the other hand, the "Idols of the Theater" proposes that man ought to think only within the framework of natxire, as against that of a tradition. Philosophies o\ight to represent the world of specific objects, not "worlds of their own creation." Philosophers ought also to subject the very tissues of their ovm reasoning to scrutiny and reject what was unreliable. Bacon turned the new critical spirit against his own logical procedtires. As Marjorie H. Nlcolson has pointed out, "In his earlier works Bacon occasionally used macrocosmio-mlcrocosraic figures, but in his later period he quite \mconsciously avoided the kind of analogical thinking he criticized in \Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning. Works, James Spedding, Robert L. Ellis, Douglas D. Heath (eds.;, VI (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, I90?), 28l.

PAGE 180

176 his generation." Shakespeare, especially in comparison to Donne , is coimnonly considered to te untouched by the new philosophy. This inay he so with regard to the objects or theories which he brought vmder specific dramatic examination. If we thus limit its scope, the following discussion of Shakespeare may be allowed to stand: In his response to the "new philosophy" Donne, as we have seen, is a modern. His contemporary Shakespeare, \*o lived on, like Donne, into a world of telescopes and stars and expanded space, remained an Elizabethan. Shalcespeere must have seen the "new star" in l60k, must have heard of Galileo's discoveries of 16IO, "of which all corners vrare fvill," He was writing some of hia greatest plays during the period of Donne's transformation from Elizabethan to "modern." Yet his poetic imasination showed no more response to new stars or a new universe than it had shown to the Copernican theory. As Miss Caroline Spurgeon's elaborate analysis of his images indicates, his imagination was not stirred by concepts for removed from men's experience. "His feet are firmly set upon 'this goodly frame, the earth,' his eyes are focused on the daily life around him." He was much more interested in man than in the \miverse. Only in King Lear , written at the time his contemporaries were dwelling upon the dramatic new star of l6oltdid his mind seem to concern itself particularly with cosmology, and here his interest v/as not in astronomy but in the "dire portents," troubled heavens and planets of astrology.^ If one considers the objects of the new philosophy and its theories, Shakespeare would seem to be Elizabethan in spirit. However, although his "poetic imagination showed no nsDre response to new stars or a new universe than it had to the Copernican theory," his poetic imagination 'Iterjorie H. Kicolson, The Breaking of the Circle (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, I95O), f.n, xxll. ^Ibld., p. 11^9.

PAGE 181

177 was stimulated to nev; ways of looking at things, which is, after all, fundamentally the spirit of the new philosophy. As thinkers ttirned from traditional approaches to truth, new efforts to explore its natvire are everywhere manifest: Descartes, the rationalist, looking to his own mind for the "clear and distinct" reality; Browne, lost in a « mystery, pursuing through intricate convolutions the Truth --"that obscured Virgin half out of the Pit." When Bacon turns from the traditional, teleological approach of the Aristotelian "why" to questions of "what" and "how," he is on common ground with ShaJcespeare, the dramatist. Episteraologj'-, with the besetting questions, "Can I know anything of 'reality'? and if so, how and what?" —Montaigne's "Que scay je?"--is for the new philosopher close to the dramatic explorations of Shalcespeare, as his characters work from error towards truth, bo tii in comedy and tragedy. Basil v;iley, stressing the epistemological interest of the seventeenth century, concludes that this period is characterized by its effort to separate truth and error. Both quests --those of the new philosopher and of ShaJcespeare— involve new approaches, new ways of getting at truth. With his attention focused more and more on character in its response to a particvilar situation, Shakespeare shows no new belief in regard to attitudes towards the heavenly bodies in their mathematically describable relationship to the earth and oner another, but he shows Hiilley, p. 85.

PAGE 182

178 himself to be in the spirit of the times in his attention to ways of looking at things. Shalcespeare's whole plays j of course, lilce nearly all drama, concern the imcovering of truth, the exposure of error and false appearance. But Shaliespeare • s concern with the nature of truth and its relation to error and appearance is more extensive than siraplj'this. Appearance may be simultaneously misleading and revealing, as we have seen. In a sense beyond the cliche, "apparel oft proclaims the man," ( Hamlet I.iii.72) and false appearances are used demonstratively in, for example, Shalcespeare's disguises. Yet no enthusiasm for the novel mode prevails on Shalcespeaxe to forget that sometimes "robes and furr'd gowns hide all." ( King Lear IV.vi.l6o) V/hat seems false may be part of a larger actuality: characters v;ho are disguised axe often more fully themselves, and statements, such as Feste's "nothing that is so is so" ( T\relfth Night IV. i. 9) that seem non-sensical, paradoxical to the degree of meaninglessness, acquire relevance in a larger context. And what seems true is discovered to be false in the light of a total consideration of all relevant issues; that is, for example, it is generally true that a studious mode of life leads to knowledge and wisdom, but when pursued with disregard for larger clairaB of human nature, it is found to lead the scholars of Navarre to folly. Truisms that blind one to truth are dramatically exposed in Shakespeare as frequently as they are arguraentatively exposed in philosophical writers. Plays in which disguises appear are clearly plays which work through deception and mj.sconception to an understanding of the truth

PAGE 183

I 179 of a situation, a character's identity. The truth of a character— his identity-is not something unconfronted by characters throughout the play, unlmo^ra because it did not appear. The truth has been present but in a. guise. The trutli is embodied in the error, the disguised person present throughout the play. These facts help to point out a difference tetvreen Shairiespearecui and Greek tragedy. In the latter, error and truth are 1-jiown more clearly from the very beginning. A revelation of one's guilt came from what one clearly knew to be a departure from a standard or law.. The laws, the standards, are not so clearly enunciated in Shakespeare. Tliey become formulated from the rav; material of partial truths and supposed .errors as truth is investigated. One is not simply exposed as having violated "a clearly-recognized responsibility, but one discovers his responsibility and guilt often in working through the illumination afforded by seeing self in terms of relationships. This process is seen in Shalcespeare ' s sonnet 35. The guilt of the spealcer is shared by the apparently guiltless person. The friend to whom the sonnet is addressed is regarded as an accessory in the vrrong which he allows done to hira. Elsewhere in the sonnets, Shalcespeare is interested, though without Donne's degree of complexity and ramification, in the locus of identity in a pair of lovers. Where does one's identity lie is the problem of sonnet 36: the lovers are one, though separate, and separate though one — the answer lies in a dilemma. Truth though it may be present in the Shalcespearean play is ascertained with great difficulty. Corafronted by truth, the character is

PAGE 184

180 unable to perceive it: "While truth the while/ Doth falsely blind the eyesight of his look." ( Love's Labour's Lost I.i.73) Conversely, when confronted with error, he may confuse it with truth, because of "the seeming truth which cunning times put on/ To entrap the wisest." ( Merchant of Venice III. ii, 100) In Henry V the French claim to title has "some shovs of truth, though, in pure truth, it was corrupt and naught." (I.ii.72) Or, "to say the truth, true and not true," as Cressida puts it. ( Troilus and Cressida I.ii.loU) Macbeth, grov:ing wary of the promise of supremacy that will last "till Birnam wood do come to Dunainane," begins "to doubt the equivocation of the fiend that lies like truth." (V.v.l|-ll-) A truth that lies, that is conceived of as hidden or allusively partial and intricated with error, must needs be approached through the convolutions of the mannerist. Thus Shalcespeare explains in his sonnet, "Most true i^ is that I have look'd on truth/ Askance and strangely." (sonnet 110 ) And Hamlet decides, . . . and thus do we of wisdom and of reach, V/ith windlasses and with assays of bias. By indirections find directions out. (Il.i.61^) For, Truth may seem but cannot be; Beauty brag, but 'tis not she; Truth and Beauty buried be. ("The Hioenix and the Turtle") In the scope of the metaphysical tradition of wit, which Boris Ford phrases as "that constant sense of other possible attitudes and

PAGE 185

181 experience: j" --a definition which draws both the raetaphysicals and V/illey's mannerists together — certainly the mature Shalcespeare, with his revealing disguises, is included. Boris Ford (ed.), From Donne to Marvell (Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, Inc., I956), p. 59.

PAGE 186

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Archer, William. Play -Making . London: Chapman and Hall Ltd., I912. Aristophanes. Aristophanes ; The Eleven Comedies. Edited hy Jean de Bosschere. New York: Horace Liveright, I928. Bacon, Francis. Works . Vol. VI. Edited by James Speeding, Robert L. Ellis, Douglas D. Heath. Boston: Houghton, Miflin and Company, 1906. Chapman, George. The Odysseys of Homer . Vol. I. Edited by Richard Hooper. London: Reeves and Turner, I897. Clemen, Wolfgang. Schein und Sein bei Shakespeare . Munchen: Bayerische Akademie Der Wissenschaften, 1959. Craig, Hardin. The Enchanted Glass . New York: Oxford University Press, 1936. Cruttwell, Patrick. The Shakespearean Moment . New York: Random House, i960. Curry, John V. Deception in Elizabethan Comedy . Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1955* Draper, John W. The Twelfth Night of Shakespeare's Audience . Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, I95O. Duthie, George Ian. Shakespeare . London: Hutchinson's University Library, 1955* Fenollosa, Ernest and Pound, Ezra. 'Noh' or Accomplishment; A Study of the Classical Stage of Japan . London; Macmillan and Co., Limited, I916. Ford, Boris (ed. ). From Donne to Marvell . Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, Inc., 1956. Freeburg, Oscar Victor. Disguise Plots in Elizabethan Drama . New York; Columbia University Press, 1915 • Freeman, Rosemaiy. English Emblem Books . London: Chatto and Windus, I9U8. 182

PAGE 187

183 Purness, Horace Howard (ed.). .. A New VariortMn Edition of Shakespeare . Vol. V, King Lear , l880j Vol, XIH, Twelfe Night, Or, VJhat You Win, 1807. Philadelphia: J. B. Llppincott Go. Gagey, Edmond M. Revolution in American Drama . New York: Columbia . University Press, 19^1. ~ Goldsmith, Rohert Hillls, Wise Fools in Shakespeare . East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1955. Granville -Barker, Harley and Harrison, G. B. A Companion to Shakespeare Studies « New York: The Macralllan Co., 1937. Grosart, Alexander B. (ed.). The Complete Poems of John Donne . London: Rob son and Sons, I873. Grosser, Maurice. The Painter's Eye . Mentor Book. New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., I956. Haigh, Arthur Elara. The Att ic Theater. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1898. Jk Harhage, /\lfred. Shakespeare's Audience . New York: Columbia University w Press, I9IH. Hellman, Robert. The Great Stage: linage and Structure in King Lear. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press, ISkQ, Hotson, Leslie. The First Night of Twelfth Night . London: Rupert Hart -Davis, 1954. "; Howell, Wilbur Samuel. Logic and Rhetoric in England, I500-I700 . Princeton, New Jersey: I^lnceton University Press, I956, Joseph, Sister Miriam. Shalcespeare's Use of the Arts of Language . New York: Columbia University Press, 19ij-9. Komlsarjevsky, Theodore. The Costume of the Theatre . London: Geoffrey Bles, 1931. i ^^ : Lawrence, William J. Pre -Restoration Stage Studies . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, I927, Linthlcvun, M. Charming, Costume in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1936.

PAGE 188

181^ X l«Iackenzie, William Roy, The Englida Moralities from the Point of View of Allegory . Boston and London: Ginn and Ccmpany, 191't. Mahood, Molly M. Shakespeare's Word -Play « London: Methuen, 1957. ^ Meres, Francis. Palladis Tami a. Edited by Don Cameron Allen. New York: p Scholars' Facsimiles and Reprints, 1936. Middleton, Thomas and Dekker, Thomas. Honest Whore . Vol. II. Deklcer ' s Dramatic Works. London: John Pearson, lt373. Neilson, William Allan and Hill, CSiarles Jarvis (eds.). The Complete Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare . Cambridge : Houghton Mifflin Company, 1942. Nicolson, Marjorie H. The Brealcing of the Circle . Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1950. Prynne, William. Histrio-Mastlx The Flayers Scourge, or. Actors Tragaedie, Divided into Two Parts ... By William Prynne, an Utter Barrester of Lincolnes Inne. London: Printed by E. A. and W. I. for Michael Sparke, 1633. W Shakespeare's England . 2 vols. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, I916. Sobel, Bernard (ed.). The Theatre Handbook . New York: Crown Publishers, 1950. Southwell, Robert. The Complete Poems of Robert Southwell . Edited by Alexander B. Grosart. London: Robson and Sons, 1672. Sprague, Arthur Colby. Shakespeare and the Audience; A Study in the Technique of Exposition . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935. St oil, Elmer Edgar, Art and Artifice in SheJkespeare: A Study in rrunatic Contrast and Illusion . New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1933. ^ Stubbes, Phillip. Anatomie of the Abuses in England . Edited by • Frederick J. Furnivall. London: N, Trubner and Co., I877-I879. Syjiier, Wylie, Four Stages of Renaissance Style . Anchor Books, Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co,, Inc, 1955.

PAGE 189

185 I Thompson, Elbert Nevius Sebring. The Controversy Between the Puritans and the Stage . Yale Studies in English. Vol. XX. New York: Henry Holt and Co., I903. Three Ladies of London, The . Edited "by W. Carew Hazlitt. Old English Plays . London: Reeves and Turner, I87U. Torakis, Thomas. Albumazar: A Comedy . Edited by Hugh G. Dick. University of California Publications in English. Vol. I3. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, i9'+if. Willey, Basil. The Seventeenth Century Baclcground. Doubleday Anchor Books. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1953 • V/inny, James (ed.). The trame of Order: An Outline of Elizabethan Belief Taken from Treatises of the Late Sixteenth Century . New York: The Macraillan Co., 1957Wither, George. A Collection of Emblems, Ancient and Hoderne; (Quickened \d.th Metrical Illustrations, both Morall and Divine: And disposed into Lotteries, That Instruction, and Good Counsell, may bee furthered by an Honest and Pleasant Recreation. By George Wither. The First Booke . London: Printed by A. M. for John Grismond, and are to be sold at the signe of the Gvinne in Irie-Lane, l635» Wright, Louis B. Middle Class Culture in Elizabethan England . Chapel Hill, N. C: The University of Worth Carolina Press, 1935* Articles and Periodicals Bennett, Josephine Waters. "These Few Precepts," Shalcespeare Quarterly , VII (1956), 275-276. Draper, John W. "Mistaken Identity in Shakespeare's Comedies," Revue Anglo-Amer icaine , IX (avril, 193^1 ), 289-297. Herbert, T. Walter. "Diverse Estimates of Polonius' Character: An Example of Dramatic Technique," Renaissance Papers , Duke University: Published by the Southeastern Renaissance Conferenco, 1957. Jenkins, Harold. "As You Like It," Shakespeare Survey , VIII (1955), ^1'

PAGE 190

186 Kreider, P. V. "The Mechanics of Disguise in Shal:espeare ' s Plays," Shakespeaje Association Bulletin , IX (193'»-); I67-I8O. McGlinchee, Claire. "Still Harping/' Shakespeare Quarterly , VI (1955)^ 275-276. Muir, Kenneth. "Shakespeare and Rhetoric," Shakespeare Jchrbuck , XC ^ I'lUXi. , X^-CIUltS oil . OIIUK. "The Uncomic Pun," The Cambridge Journal, III (May, 1950), ir72-if85. Parkes, II. B. "Nature's Diverse Laws: The Double Vision of the Elizabethans," Sewanee Reviev; , LVIII (I950), if02-iH8. Spencer, Benjamin T. "Antony and Cleopatra and the Paradoxical Metaphozar Shakespeare Quarterly , IX, 373-378. Summers, Joseph H. "The Masks of Twelfth Wight," The University of Kansas City Review , 22 (Autumn, 1955), 25-32. Zeitlin, Jacob. "Commonplaces in English Life and Letters," The Journ^ ~* of English. and Germanic Philology, XIX (1920), l|-7-65. Uapublished Material Cline, Franlc P., Jr. "Presentation of Space in the Plays of John V/ebster," unpublished Master's thesis, Department of English, University of Florida, I958. Teagarden, Jack E. "Reaction to the Professional Actor in Elizabethan London," unpublished Ih.D. dissertation, Department of English, University of Florida, 1957. Other Sources Program for a University of Connecticut production of Twelfth Night ' by the Depoxtment of Speech and Drama, Storrs, Connecticut, March, I95:

PAGE 191

VITA Emily Bxo^m Stanley \rae born in Geneva, Illinois , on September 15/ 1929. After graduating from Wheaton College Academy, IJheaton, Illinois, in 19lf8, she attended Wheaton College imtil I95I. In 1953 she received the Bachelor of Science Degree in English from Northvrestern University, graduating v^ith departmental honors. She enrolled for graduate study at the University of Florida in September, 195^+, where she received a graduate teaching assistantship in C-3, the freshman English program. She received the detiree of Master of Arts from the University of.' Florida in June, I956. ' Vftiile she was completing study leading towards the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, she held a graduate fellowship. From I95O-I960 Mrs, Stanley was a part-time instructor at the University of Connecticut. Her hushand, William N. Stanley, whom she married in 19'<-9, is a teacher of music. 187

PAGE 192

This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been approved hy all members of the committee. It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council and was approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Hiilosophy. June 6, i960 Dean, College of Arts and Sciraces Dean, Grfaduate School SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: Chairman